The U.S. Supreme Court in Missouri v. McNeely held that compelling a potential drunk driver to submit to a blood test without a warrant is prohibited by the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizures. In individual cases, exigent circumstances may permit a compelled blood draw based on the totality of the circumstances. In drunk driving cases, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute per se exigency sufficent to skip the constitutionally mandated step of getting a warrant. This is not to say that there couldn’t be circumstances that could compel a driver who refuses to provide a breath sample to succumb to a needle prick to take a blood draw from a vein, but it will be scrutinized much more carefully and have to have facts and circumstances to support it.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in US v. Thompson found that in a case involving felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(1), the Defendant must have had at least two of the three “civil rights” restored to not be in violation of the statute. Thus, when Thompson was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm based on a 1994 state conviction, he defended the case claiming that his civil rights had been restored in 2005. In actuality, Thompson only regained his right to vote, but not to serve on a jury or to hold public office. The Eleventh Circuit held that because Thompson had only 1 or his 3 civil rights restored, he was still in violation of the statue for possessing a firearm.
The Tampa Tribune Reader’s Poll of 2012 has rated Palmieri Law as the Best Law Firm in its Reader’s Poll of 2012. This was a result of countless reader’s voting and confirming the hard work that Lori Doganiero Palmieri and her staff has worked hard to achieve over the last 9 years in private practice. If you or a loved one is in need of criminal defense representation in state or federal court, why not go to the best – the expert in Criminal Trial Law – Palmieri Law.
On May 7, 2011, TP, an 8 year USAF veteran, honorably discharged, went to Ybor City with his cousin. He and his (girl)friend had a disagreement when leaving a bar. A group of men from Manatee County insinuated themselves into their argument and started disparaging the woman with obscenities and vulgar comments. She pushed one of the men. A fight nearly occurred, although the client was always trying to calm the situation and quash the violence. When the client ran to get his car from a nearby lot, the traffic was bumper to bumper. Fearful that his cousin and friend would be jumped by this group, he drove on the wrong side of the road and accidently struck the same gentleman in the argument in the street. He was charged with Aggravated Battery with a Deadly Weapon accused of intentionally running the man down in the street with his vehicle. He was immediately arrested. It took over a year to come to trial. The state’s investigation was very poor. The defense presented his two witnesses that law enforcement refused to take a statement from that night. The defense also introduced a forensic engineer who performed accelleration testing on the client’s vehicle. It was proven that his 4-cyl car could not generate the reported 35-40 mph speed in just 30 yards. The state’s witnesses statements differed from those originally taken. The client testified it was an accident as well. The jury took less than an hour to acquit him. The court excluded any testimony that the client suffered from PTSD due to his combat time in Iraq. The client was a medic in the Air Force and was studying to become a RN. There was no reason for him to retaliate against this accident victim. The court also excluded the victim’s twice the legal limit of alcohol plus cocaine and marijuana in his system.
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.
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.
The Googling phenomenon is hard to escape; if you’re not sure what a word means, you Google it. If you want to find out who someone is, you Google him/her. When called to serve jury duty, some may find it second nature to look up facts or definitions in relation to the trial they are serving on. In most cases, if anyone on the jury is found to be Googling, a mistrial may be declared and the case could be tossed.
This is not uncommon. In 2009, a mistrial was declared in a large federal drug trial in Florida when nine jurors admitted to doing research on the Internet. The mistrial resulted in eight weeks of hard work by criminal defense attorneys and federal prosecutors being thrown out.
An article from The Star referenced a first-degree murder trial in Maryland where the jury Googled and discovered two articles referencing body temperature after death. After refusing to declare a mistrial, the murder conviction was later tossed out by an appeals court.
As it may come as second nature to tweet, Google, blog, post or text anything these days, leaving this habit on the steps outside of the courtroom is a good idea. Last week, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a law making it a misdemeanor for a juror to willfully disobey “a court admonishment related to the prohibition on any form of communication or research about the case, including all forms of electronic or wireless communication or research.”
Over the years, many trials have resulted in what is being called a “Mistrial by Google”, wasting time and money for all parties involved. With California’s recent action, it may not be long until other states adopt similar laws. So next time you are sitting on a jury, think twice before you let your urge to Google takeover, as it could not only result in a mistrial, but could land you in a jail cell as well.
On Friday, the criminal defense attorneys representing Julie Scheckner indicated their intent to use the insanity defense. Scheckner is accused of shooting and killing both of her children this past January, but her defense claims that she suffers from “bipolar disorder with psychotic features.”
An ABC Action News article claims that Scheckner told authorities she killed her children because they were being disrespectful and “mouthy”. Scheckner allegedly did not only struggle with a mental illness, but substance abuse as well.
In order for Scheckner to be found not guilty by reason of insanity, the jury must be convinced that she did not know right from wrong. Although it may be true that she suffers from bipolar disease, it has to be proven in court that because of her disease, she did not think she did anything wrong. With statements from Scheckner that she shot her children because of their behavior, her defense is facing quite a challenge to prove that she is not guilty by reason of insanity.
We’ve spent months following the Casey Anthony case, and until this past Monday, we didn’t think there would be anything left to write about. Then news broke that Casey Anthony had 72 hours to report back to Orlando to meet her probation officer.
We still don’t know Casey Anthony’s current whereabouts, but if she is ordered to serve probation, she will be required to provide an Orlando address to her probation officer. In most cases, the parolee’s address is public record, but exceptions can be made and given the public’s opinion in this case, that exception may be considered.
Anthony is facing the possibility of probation for check fraud charges that she plead guilty to last year. The confusion lies in whether or not Anthony’s jail time counted towards that probation. Anthony’s criminal lawyer argues yes, but Judge Stan Strickland says no. According to an MSNBC article, “Strickland said at the time he had meant that Anthony — found not guilty of killing her daughter and released in July — should serve the probation order if and when she was freed.”
On Tuesday, Cheney Mason filed a motion to disqualify Judge Strickland. Today, the judge has recused himself and the matter has been reassigned to Chief Judge Belvin Perry, the judge who presided over Anthony’s first-degree murder trial.
We will see whether Casey Anthony will be required by Judge Perry to return to Orlando to serve probation and whether she will abide by the court’s order. If a bench warrant issues for her arrest for failing to return to Orlando, the fever to locate her will be heightened. Media and law enforcement from across the country will seek to capture her arrest and return her to Florida. The public spectacle surrounding Casey Anthony will surely continue.
On Monday July 25, 2011 the Florida Supreme court determined that Manuel Valle, convicted of killing a police officer, had valid concerns regarding the new death penalty drug. As a result, Valle’s death sentence has been postponed until September 1. In general, an inmate’s concerns elsewhere have not put a stop to executions.
According to an article published by Reuters, the Supreme Court determined that “[Valle] has raised a factual dispute, not conclusively refuted as to whether the use of pentobarbital in Florida’s lethal injection protocol will subject him to a ‘substantial risk of serious harm.’”
What is the difference between pentobarbital and sodium thiopental (the drug previously used)?
Not much except that Pentobarbital is often used to euthanize animals. The reason many correctional facilities are using the drug is because there is a shortage of sodium thiopental and it will not be made by U.S. manufacturers any more.
Valle’s lawyer’s argued that pentobarbital will subject him to substantial harm. It isn’t uncommon in recent days that a criminal defense attorney will argue the risk of harm to postpone a sentence.