Defense Lawyer Offers Scholarship for Underage Drunk Driving

In an effort to help teens recognize the dangers of drunk driving, Colorado Springs defense attorney Christian Schwaner recently announced that he will award a $1,000 college scholarship for the best essay that recounts a teen’s experience of driving while intoxicated.

Schwaner states the goal of his First Step Scholarship is to get teenagers to think about the risks associated with drinking and driving. A parent himself, Schwaner is concerned that speeches given by parents often aren’t heard by teens. He believes that having applicants account for their actions, research the risks, and plan ways to avoid future drunk driving may make a difference for students who apply.

However, Schwaner’s idea is drawing fire from some critics. Underage drinking and intoxicated driving are both crimes, and some question whether the scholarship could be seen as rewarding teens for their dangerous and illegal behavior. Furthermore, some wonder if the process of writing an essay will truly get teens to think twice about the consequences of drunk driving. And in another wrinkle, legal experts have cautioned that in applying for the scholarship, teens will admit to criminal offenses without the protection of attorney-client privilege—a move that could have consequences down the road.

Yet, the reality is that teen alcohol misuse and underage drunk driving are serious and widespread. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that approximately 10% of high schoolers drink and drive. According to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, teen alcohol use kills 4,700 people each year and about one-fourth of teen deaths from car crashes involve an underage drunk driver. Given stats like this, supporters of the scholarship program argue that anything that could help is worth a try.

Decreasing the rate of underage drunk driving certainly requires innovative ideas. Do you think a DUI scholarship has the potential to make a difference when it comes to teens and intoxicated driving?

Continue Reading...

20 Questions to Ask Your Kansas DUI Lawyer

I have written about and blogged before about how it is that a person accused of a DUI should go about trying to find the best dui lawyer for their case. If you have been accused of driving under the influence, I would suggest starting with this article if you haven’t already read it. Every attorney seems to offer a “free consultation”. This “free consultation” typically consists of you sitting down with the attorney, the attorney telling you how much trouble you are in, and the attorney telling you how great he or she is and why you ought to hire him or her. The person charged with the DUI is overwhelmed, confused and nearly paralyzed by the gravity of the situation. They are usually too engulfed with fear to ask questions, or are never even given the opportunity to do so. However, this “consultation” should be about you getting consultation – answers to your questions – from an experienced professional. You are interviewing the attorney. The attorney isn’t interviewing you! The lawyer’s purpose in this meeting is to try to get hired. Your goal for this interview is to get to know the person so that you can determine whether this lawyer is the best one to handle your DUI case.

Anybody who graduates from law school can put out an ad or throw up a website that proclaims that he or she is an “experienced” DUI lawyer, that they will “fight for you” and that they have a “track record of results”. These are all relative terms and basic advertising slogans. It does not make any of that true. Some attorneys that I see advertising on their websites that they are “experienced” have been out of law school for two years and probably have never tried a case. You have to do your due diligence to ask questions and figure out if the lawyer is for real or just giving you a sales pitch. Here are some questions that I would suggest to help determine if an attorney is experienced and will fight for you:

When is the last time you went to trial in a case like this? (not just filed motions but litigated a case to a verdict in front of a judge)When is the last time you had a trial in front of a jury?Have you ever appealed a municipal court DUI charge to district court?Have you ever been successful at beating a case on appeal from municipal court?How many DUI cases do you handle a year?What percentage of your cases go to trial in front of a judge or jury?How much experience do you have with blood test cases? Urine test cases? Have you ever taken one to trial?Have you ever hired an expert to consult with you on a breath test case?Have you ever tried a DUI with a breath test coming in to evidence?Have you ever appealed an administrative driver’s license suspension to district court?Have you ever been successful in overturning a driver’s license suspension on appeal?Have you ever appealed a case to the Kansas Court of Appeals and/or Kansas Supreme Court?Will you personally handle appearances, negotiations and litigation on my behalf or will it be handed off to an underling or outsourced?Will you send me copies of the police reports, video recordings and any other evidence you receive from the prosecution?Have you ever appeared in front of the judge in this case in a contested proceeding? What was your experience?Have you ever subpoenaed documents from the Kansas Bureau of Investigation or a crime lab regarding a blood test or urine test in a DUI case? Ever cross-examined a forensic lab technician about a blood or urine test?Have you ever worked with an accident reconstructionist before?Do you charge additional fees in order to file motions or go to trial?Do you have a policy on how quickly you return telephone calls or emails?How many open cases do you have right now?

These questions need to be asked in person, not over the phone. You need to meet with the attorney at his or her office and ask the questions that are relevant to your case and which address whatever concerns that you might have. You need to tell the attorney what your primary concern is in the case – is it jail time? Losing your driver’s license? Having a conviction on your record? Losing a professional license, i.e. nursing certificate, physician certificate, SEC licensing, etc.? Those concerns should be very familiar to the lawyer and he or she should be able to tell you what you can expect and what his or her experience has been with that issue. Any lawyer that won’t answer your questions, seems annoyed by them or who is not able to answer them should be suspicious.

If you take the time to ask some questions and do your own research you should be able to find the right person for you and be confident in your choice. The decision of who to hire is an important one and should not be based on advertising, a phone call or a website alone. Ask questions and get answers.

Google+

Continue Reading...

How an OUI Lawyer Fights Inaccurate Breathalyzer Results in Massachusetts

Many people don’t realize that breathalyzer test readings are not necessarily accurate. A breathalyzer is a machine. Machines have flaws. But before those flaws can be shared with a judge or a jury the OUI defense lawyer you hire needs to know how these machines work. If he or she does not know then how can the flaws in the process be explained to a jury. Think about it. Jurors are just normal people. Some work. Some do not. They come from all different backgrounds. Some are educated while others are not. If the primary issue in the DUI trial is to challenge the accuracy of the breathalyzer reading then your lawyer better be able to do this in a way that gives the jury pause before accepting the police officer’s recitation of his reading of the machine. It is also important to keep in mind that there are several types of breathalyzer machines in use. Your lawyer must know how each one works if you are going to be properly defended. This post briefly examines one of these machines, the Intoxilyzer, how it works and facts about false readings.

The Intoxilizer Machine in Massachusetts

This machine uses infrared technology to estimate the presence of alcohol in a gas sample. The sample is acquired by having the subject blow into a mouthpiece that is attached to a tube running into the machine. Alcohol molecules, if present in the sample enter the chamber and react with infrared radiation sending a reading that is calculated in accordance with the amount of infrared radiation that is absorbed. The calculations are based on generally accepted partition ratios of 2,100 to 1. That is, for every one molecule of alcohol in your breath sample there are 2,100 such molecules in your blood. In order for this evidence to be presented to a jury the prosecution must put an expert on the stand. This someone who not only administers the test but is able to explain how the machine works. As a practical matter there are very few of these people in Massachusetts and all of them, if being honest will admit that there are several flaws with this machine.

What Are the Flaws With the Intoxilyzer Machine in Massachusetts?

The intoxilyzer machine cannot distinguish between mouth alcohol and blood alcohol. That is, if there is some residual alcohol in your mouth the reading will be higher than what your blood alcohol truly is. Mouthwash or toothpaste give high false readings as do certain types of chewing gum and breath mints. Certain medications give higher readings. People with acid reflux, GERD, tend to have intoxilyzer readings that are high and not reflective of actual blood alcohol. Improper administration of the test can result in a false positive reading. This often occurs when the police officer tells you to keep blowing. The test itself requires only 1.1 liters of breath to establish an admissible reading. Most people can provide samples three or four times that large. The more you blow the greater the chance of getting a higher reading. There are many more factors that show how these tests can be inaccurate. This is something you want your lawyer to point out to a jury. Our office has the ability to do that. Call us now to get started with your Massachusetts OUI defense.

Continue Reading...

DUI lawyer Scottsdale

The police shootings of an unarmed man in a St. Louis suburb and an unarmed man in South Carolina have both shown that video can provide valuable evidence for police and the public in cases that have few other witnesses, and prompted a Valley attorney to ask why more agencies don't use cameras.
Craig Rosenstein, a Scottsdale DUI attorney, said members of the public could be surprised how few police officers and deputies in Maricopa County use cameras in their vehicles.
"This is a widespread failure," said Rosenstein, who noted that other department's around the state might serve as a blueprint on how to implement the programs.
"The justice system is dogged because so many of these cases end up being a police officer's word against a defendant's word. There's no third party account," he said.
But more and more Valley agencies have started outfitting officers with cameras in recent years, including some forced to do so by courts and others who wish to avoid the same fate.
In 2013, U.S. District Judge Murray Snow ordered that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office install cameras in every deputy's vehicle.
The reform was part of the federal judge's ruling that Sheriff's Joe Arpaio's office violated the constitutional rights of Latinos through many of its immigration enforcement efforts.
In September, the agency's court-appointed monitor presented a report indicating that the Sheriff's office was lagging in its compliance with the judge's reforms.
In a separate 2006 race-profiling settlement, the Arizona Department of Public Safety was ordered to install vehicle-based video systems in all of its patrol vehicles throughout the state.
The class-action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union alleged DPS officers were discriminating against Hispanics and Blacks during traffic stops.
Some local jurisdictions are trying to avoid similar lawsuits by implementing camera systems now.
The Scottsdale and Gilbert police departments are testing cameras worn on patrol officers as part of pilot programs to decide whether to implement the cameras for permanent use. Scottsdale is testing ten cameras while Gilbert tests 32.
In Surprise, police officers have worn body cameras since August 2013. All patrol officers use the cameras while responding to investigations, traffic enforcement and contact with the community.
Some agencies have cited cost and budget concerns when defending their slow implementation of camera systems, but Rosenstein said cameras will save money in the long term.
"Police departments spend a ton of money defending themselves when people accuse them of wrongdoing," Rosenstein said. "A camera would bolster what they're saying is the truth."
The Phoenix Police Department does not use vehicle cameras, but is currently testing 55 body cameras as part of an Arizona State University study.
Phoenix police spokesman Sgt. Trent Crump said the department is already successful in prosecuting cases without video evidence.
"If the courts begin to dictate or request additional information, we'll comply," Crump said.
Rosenstein said that is a scary thought process for law enforcement to have.
"Just because juries convict doesn't mean we shouldn't have independent corroboration for all to see," Rosenstein said. "Juries are generally inclined to believe an officer over a person accused of a crime and has a different view of events."

Continue Reading...

How Bad Can a Bad Lawyer Really Be?

No matter how many times it’s said,  some people still don’t understand how bad a bad lawyer can really be.  The Innocence Project list bad lawyering as one of the leading causes to false convictions.  Here is an excerpt from on of the profiles highlighting this issue:

The exoneration and release of Jimmy Ray Bromgard from Montana prison provides a sobering view of the effects of inadequate or incompetent counsel. Bromgard, arrested when he was 18, spent 15 years in prison for the brutal rape of an eight-year-old girl, a crime post-conviction DNA testing proved he did not commit. Bromgard’s trial attorney performed no investigation, filed no pre-trial motions, gave no opening statement, did not prepare for closing arguments, failed to file an appeal, and provided no expert to refute the fraudulent testimony of the state’s hair microscopy expert. Other than the forensic testimony and the tentative identification, there was no evidence against Bromgard.

There is certainly quite a difference between Homer Simpson's Lawyer and O.J. Simpson's.

Just as in any profession there is a big difference between the true professionals and ones who are downright bad.  Take mechanics for instance.  A good mechanic will identify the problem and fix it right the first time.  A bad mechanic may miss the diagnosis and fix something else.  After a a few trips back and forth, your problem isn’t fixed and you’ve spent more time and money than had you opted for the better mechanic in the first place.

Add up the costs of a DUI conviction.  You have:

FinesPay lost while you serve jail timeCosts of getting to and from work while you serve a license suspensionIncreased insurance costs

All of those costs added up are far more than the cost of a professional DUI lawyer.

The moral of the story is when choosing a mechanic or DUI lawyer -do it right the first time. Good lawyers aren’t cheap. Cheap lawyers aren’t good.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

5 Questions to Ask a DUI Lawyer You Plan to Hire

Make sure you do your homework before hiring a DUI lawyer

For many people who are charged with a DUI, this is their first encounter with the criminal justice system.  DUI cases are unique because they are highly technical and require scientific knowledge as well as legal expertise to defend properly.  This is why choosing the right lawyer is the single most important decision you can make which will greatly affect the outcome of your case.

But how can someone with no legal expertise know they are choosing the right lawyer?  Here are five questions you can ask which will help you compare your options:

What kind of specialized training do you have to defend DUI cases?
DUI is a highly technical field and requires a large amount of research and training to be able to defend effectively.  This is why attendance of advanced DUI training seminars is a must.
How many lectures have you presented or scholarly papers have you had published about DUI this year?
Only respected experts are invited to teach other lawyers about DUI.  If your lawyer is an active speaker on DUI or has had scholarly papers published, then you know you are in the hands of a lawyer who takes their craft very seriously.
When was the last time you took a DUI case to trial?
If the attorney does not take DUI cases to trial regularly then you should be suspicious.  You may be dealing with a paper pusher who would rather process your case as fast as possible without considering what options are best for you.
Can you provide me with some notable out of state references?
When you call a reference, call as an anonymous person without revealing who gave you the number. Say that you found their number on the net and are facing a DUI case in such-and-such area and would like them to refer a lawyer.  Also try to measure their level of enthusiasm about the reference they are providing.
What is your detailed plan for my case?
If their detailed plan involves pleading guilty right off the bat, then choose another lawyer.  Anyone can stand up in court and plead guilty. You may not even need a lawyer for that in certain circumstances.  Protecting your rights and your life requires a concrete plan and thorough preparation and you will only find that with an elite DUI attorney.

If you or a loved one is facing a DUI, please keep in mind the information above.  Make sure to share it with friends and co-workers and help educate them about these important legal matters as well.

If you are facing a DUI in Pennsylvania, please call 1-866-MCSHANE for a free consultation.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Fort Lauderdale DUI Lawyer on DUI by the Numbers

Driving under the influence and criminal defense issues associated with it often involve a lot of numbers, notes Fort Lauderdale DUI lawyer William Moore. 0.08 is the blood alcohol content at which a person is presumed to be impaired. Controlled substances, either prescription or completely illegal, are not quantified in urinalysis, making those tests less effective for prosecutors trying to prove a DUI case. On the other hand, those substances can be and generally are quantified in blood samples, according to Fort Lauderdale DUI attorney Moore. Therefore, the state’s toxicologist may testify as an expert witness regarding matters such as whether the substances are present at a therapeutic level.

Another numbers issue often addressed by anti-drunk driving organizations is the role alcohol plays in accidents and traffic problems more generally. Studies consistently show that in accidents where a driver is injured, the hurt person more often than not caused the accident. The studies also show that the rates for responsibility of the accidents fatal to the drivers are even higher for those drivers who are under the influence at the time of the accident, by a difference of 68% for non-impaired drivers to 94% for impaired drivers. The figures include accidents that did not involve any other cars.

About one of every seven drivers on the road suffers from diabetes, which is staggering when taken in consideration with the fact that a diabetic suffering from a serious hypoglycemic (low blood sugar) episode often exhibits the same signs law enforcement officers look for in DUI -- slurring speech, unsteadiness, confusion or disorientation, to name a few. The breath test machine, or breathalyzer, will not exonerate these individuals. During a hypoglycemic episode, the driver will produce significant acetone, which the breathalyzer registers as though it were alcohol.

Field sobriety tests produce some interesting numbers, as well, says Broward DUI lawyer Moore. A Clemson University study tested officers’ ability to distinguish test-takers who had been drinking from those who had not. None of those taking the field sobriety tests had consumed any alcohol. The officers were not told this fact, and after seeing their performance on the roadside tests, found that 46% of the individuals were too impaired to operate a motor vehicle. If law enforcement officers can only spot a sober person half of the time, these tests are not very useful.

Although the ratio has and continues to shift dramatically, women are still arrested for DUI at much lower rates than men are. Fewer than 20% of DUI defendants are women, and more than 90% of those who have a second or subsequent DUI arrest are men. Women are also more difficult to test with a breathalyzer machine, as they may not have the lung capacity that a man would have, and there are certain inherent BAC testing biases that skew against women.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Evidence in DUI Trials -- Fort Lauderdale DUI Lawyer

When a person is pulled over and the law enforcement officer conducts a DUI investigation, he or she is looking for one main thing: evidence that your normal faculties are impaired by a substance (alcohol or drugs). However, the police officer a couple of disadvantage in terms of accuracy in this investigation. The first is that law enforcement is unaware of what your particular normal faculties are. This means that if you have had a knee injury, for instance, doing a heel-to-toe walking pattern on the side of a highway may be difficult for you. Similarly, standing on one foot for a long period of time may cause you to sway for any number of medical reasons that do not reflect on your degree of intoxication or impairment, notes Fort Lauderdale DUI lawyer William Moore.

There are three ways the police try to collect proof against a driver suspected of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The first is by inquiring about alcohol usage, or interrogation about the matter. An officer could ask, for instance, if you have been drinking and if so, how much. The second matter the officer will look at is your performance on roadside field sobriety tests, in which you are asked to complete several physical activities (and follow instructions) to see how well you are able to complete the task. As mentioned before, standing on one leg, possibly while counting, or walking heel-to-toe for a certain number of steps are common tasks. The officer will evaluate your performance on these tasks, although his or her perception is highly subjective, and may be colored by the fact that the officer already suspects the driver is intoxicated. Perhaps the most important test the law enforcement officer will ask you to submit to is a breath test to check for alcohol in your system, more commonly known as a breathalyzer. Although there is evidence suggesting these machines are not nearly as accurate as police or the machines’ manufacturers claim they are, the results are still admissible in a court of law. You may also be asked to submit to a blood or urine test, depending on the circumstances.

The less proof of intoxication exists, or what law enforcement believes is evidence, the less likely a driver is to be convicted at trial. “Triple refusals” can therefore be useful to your DUI defense lawyer, although refusal can have other consequences, including a longer period of driver’s license revocation. Always consult an experienced Broward DUI attorney before making these decisions.

In addition to these tests, the law enforcement official is also checking other signs of intoxication. Bloodshot eyes are an indicator they use, but one which is mimicked by other issues. Foremost among these is dry contacts, but even just being tired after a long day or allergies could cause red eyes.

This article should not be construed as legal advice in any way. Additionally, please note that because the operation of a motor vehicle constitutes implied consent to testing. Further, refusing a second or subsequent time can result in separate criminal charges.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Broward DUI Lawyer on Actual Physical Control of a Vehicle

Driving under the influence, as the name implies, usually actually involves driving. But Fort Lauderdale DUI lawyer Moore says that literal driving is not a requirement for the state to prove the a DUI charge. The Florida law that governs drunk driving, Fl. Stat. Section 316.193, requires only that the driver be in "actual physical control" of the vehicle. Most states have a similar or identical standard, which has tended to be construed rather broadly.

Surprisingly, Broward DUI lawyer Moore says that actual physical control may include just simply sitting in the driver’s seat in some instances. The car does not necessarily even need to be turned on. If the keys are in the ignition or even within reach, such as within the pocket of the person sitting in the driver’s seat, as well as other circumstances, law enforcement agents and the courts may consider the defendant to have been in actual physical control of the vehicle.

A driver -- or “driver,” as the case may be -- also does not need to necessarily be out on the road in order to be charged with DUI. Sitting in a car in a driveway, on private property, can still potentially subject the individual to a charge of driver under the influence so long as the law enforcement officer had a reason to investigate the situation. For example, if police were called to the home to sort out allegations of a domestic altercation, the situation could arise where one partner goes to the car to cool off. The police might also initiate an investigation if they see suspicious activity that warrants their attention, says Fort Lauderdale DUI lawyer, such as a person passed out in a car who may need medical attention.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Broward DUI Lawyer: Driving Under the Influence on a Bicycle

In the state of Florida -- surprisingly -- courts have ruled that it is possible to be arrested and convicted of DUI on a bicycle, says Fort Lauderdale DUI lawyer Moore. There are no precise figures available, but arrests of individuals riding a bike while (allegedly or actually) under the influence of alcohol or other substances are more common than one might imagine.

Implied consent is not applicable for a bicycle DUI. Implied consent refers to the fact that the operation of a motor vehicle -- generally a car -- on the roads in Florida necessarily means that the operator has consented to certain DUI testing when requested by a law enforcement officer, says Fort Lauderdale DUI lawyer Moore. Most often, this means a breathalyzer test.

The relevant section of the Florida statute states that committing a DUI involves a “vehicle,” which has been interpreted very broadly since its enactment A bicycle is not a motor vehicle, but can be taken on the public streets and roadways. There is also a colorable argument that bicycles, sharing the streets with cars, can pose a hazard to the safe flow of traffic and pedestrians if an operator is impaired, according to Broward DUI attorney Moore.

For purposes of driver’s license suspension, the DUI must be in a motor vehicle, such as a car. The courts are split as to whether the typically mandatory driver’s license suspension periods are required when the DUI did not occur on a motor vehicle.

The third District Court of Appeals in the state of Florida dealt with this issue in 1987. The DCA concluded that, based on the statute, the Florida legislature had a broad definition of vehicle in mind when enacting the statute. Interestingly, the Florida Supreme Court has not weighed in on whether a DUI can be committed on a bicycle, and this opinion remains that legal standard as the only appellate opinion on the issue in this state.

A survey of other states shows that they have taken a varied approach. A number of jurisdictions have maintained that a DUI can only be committed on a motor vehicle, which can be more than just a car or truck. For instance, hooking up a lawnmower engine to a living room recliner and driving it around could result in a DUI arrest. Other states include non-motor vehicles, such as bicycles and even individuals who are riding on horseback.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

DUI Manslaughter Issues by Fort Lauderdale DUI Lawyer

DUI can be enhanced in several ways, according to Fort Lauderdale DUI attorney William Moore. If the defendant’s blood alcohol content is measured over 0.15, the state can pursue enhancement. If convicted, the defendant will pay higher fines, be required to install an ignition interlock, and face tougher penalties that he would otherwise, including more time in jail. Where a minor is in the car, the penalties are also enhanced in the same way. Involvement in an accident, even if there were no other vehicles involved, also leads to enhancing factors. Leaving the scene after a DUI accident will usually be charged as a separate offense.

DUI causing serious bodily injury and DUI manslaughter are separate from regular DUI and are more serious. Nonetheless, a jury still has the option of convicting a person tried for DUI manslaughter or DUI causing serious bodily injury of simple DUI only, depending on the facts and particular circumstances surrounding the case before them.

What, then, constitutes DUI manslaughter? The driver must first be committing a DUI: driving while his normal faculties are too impaired to do so. This can be demonstrated through a breath or blood alcohol test at or above a 0.08. The state can also, or alternatively, use other evidence such as performance on roadside field sobriety tests, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, damaging statements, or the driver’s demeanor or state of mind.

In addition to simple DUI, however, a conviction for DUI manslaughter also requires the driver to cause or contribute to the death of another person. Usually, this occurs during a traffic accident. However, some prosecutors have been interpreting it more broadly. A Tampa man, for instance, was recently tried for DUI manslaughter after he caused an accident. His BAC was over the legal limit. A good Samaritan stopped to render aid following the accident, but was struck and killed by a third party -- who was also intoxicated. The first driver, who apparently caused the accident, was charged with DUI manslaughter on the theory that he had caused or contributed to the conditions resulting in the good Samaritan’s death. The connection is fairly tenuous and the man was not convicted of DUI manslaughter after trial. The other driver, who struck the good Samaritan, took a plea agreement.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Broward DUI Lawyer on the Confrontation Clause & DUI Issues

The Confrontation Clause is found in the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and states as follows: "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to be confronted with the witnesses against him." This right is applied to prosecutions by states through incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment, says Fort Lauderdale DUI lawyer Moore.

Crawford v. Washington was a Confrontation Clause case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2004. Michael Crawford stabbed a man, Kenneth Lee, over a dispute related to Lee's alleged attempt to rape Sylvia Crawford, the wife of the defendant. Crawford claimed that at the time of the stabbing, he was under the impression that Lee had been armed and was thus acting in self-defense. Mrs. Crawford made conflicting statements to the police, first stating that she had not been present during the scuffle and later stating that she was present and Lee was unarmed. Her husband was charged in relation to the stabbing, says Broward DUI attorney Moore.

At trial, the prosecution used a tape of Mrs. Crawford's statement, over the objection of the defense. Mrs. Crawford could not be compelled to testify due to spousal privilege. Further, the defense contended that the defendant could not cross-examine Mrs. Crawford about her statement without the defendant being forced to waive the privilege. Crawford was convicted, but his conviction was overturned by the appellate court, then reinstated by the Washington Supreme Court. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case. In a landmark decision, the Court held that where a witness would offer testimonial evidence, he or she must be made available for cross-examination by the defendant.

The Confrontation Clause does not, it would seem, apply to machines. This is an important distinction for DUI cases, notes Broward DUI lawyer Moore. Although the company that manufactures the breathalyzer machines used in Florida and other states has been ordered by several courts to release its source code -- the computer programming that tells the machine how to calculate the breath alcohol in the sample produced by a suspect -- the company has repeatedly refused to do so, citing in part a trade secret. However, a DUI defendant can still contest the accuracy of the machines, usually through the use of expert testimony regarding the reliability of the breathalyzer, its biases, and the margin of error inherent in the results produced. In fact, breathalyzer machine operators in the state of Florida must obtain two breath samples within 0.02 of one another in order to proceed with the breath.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

A Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Discuses Changes In MA Parole System Due To Homicide Of Woburn Police Officer- Attorney Sam’s Take

If you heard a cacophony of crashing noises yesterday from the direction of Boston’s Beacon Hill, it was the sound of Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick , along with a certain Parole Board, caving in to public ridicule and political pressure.

As you have heard time and time again, the now-infamous Massachusetts Parole Board released a repeat violent offender in 2008. Of course, it was not the first time that this has happened. However, this time, said offender , in 2010, was involved in a robbery to which the late police officer John Maguire responded. There was a gunfight and the officer, as well as the offender, were killed. Since that time, amongst various reports of unexplained police shootings of suspects and non-suspects, a state-wide hand-wringing has been occurring.

Naturally, in 2011, tragedy must be someone’s fault. Someone living’s fault. Thus, it was the Parole Board’s fault.

At first, Governor Patrick had the gall to be a leader and indicate before rushing to judgment and demanding the Parole Board’s heads on a stick, that perhaps we should concentrate on the victims, then gather all the evidence and then decide fault.

Well, so much for that kind of nonsense.

Governor Patrick has now announced “sweeping changes” at the Massachusetts Parole Board. The political broomstick has swept out, for example, the five Parole Board members at issue (through their own resignations, of course).

Said sweeping also includes a moratorium to remain in place on executive sessions for high-risk offenders, he said. The governor also promised to file legislation calling, among other things, for tougher sentencing for repeat offenders and greater truth in sentencing. According to press accounts, Governor Patrick wants paroles of repeat violent offenders to stop until the Parole Board can demonstrate an ability to oversee their release.

Patrick also said at the news conference he was appointing Josh Wall, first assistant district attorney in Suffolk County, as the interim executive director of the board. He also said he had nominated Wall to the board and intended to appoint him chairman.

During my many years as an experienced Boston criminal defense attorney , I have had many dealings with assistant district attorney Wall. He is an experienced prosecutor and, as the late Jerry Williams would say, “Not a bad guy”.

He is, of course a seasoned prosecutor which means he is well indoctrinated to that point of view. I suppose that’s ok…the assumption at parole is, after all, that the potential parolee “did it”.

The problem is when the governor, who should know better, succumbs to the weight of political expediency. Statements like no paroles should be allowed until the Parole Board can guarantee that it can oversee all parolees is a command not rooted in reality and he knows it.

Parole cannot guarantee that. Not enough resources.

One might as well say that nobody will be placed on probation any longer because the Department of Probation cannot guarantee adequate oversight. Anyone in the system will tell you that, actually, they can’t if they are honest.

I wonder if, given the above-referenced police shootings and beatings, whether we should hold off on giving police officers weapons until we can guarantee that they are all fit and properly supervised. Ahh, but now I am talking crazy...!

Again, in a system where we try to cure everything by criminal sentences and prison terms, it is not possible. There are not enough resources and there will be less tomorrow. Raise taxes for it? Come on…you know better than that.

On the other hand, the governor claims he wants better “truth in sentencing”:. Actually, we have that. A sentence of 10 years, for example, means that you will basically serve 10 years. However, “life sentences” which sound so good ‘n tough cannot actually always mean life. First of all, it would not be appropriate for all those who receive such sentences. Further, again, we would not have the resources to keep all of them in for life. Finally, take away all hope of freedom and all such prisoners would have nothing to lose by their conduct. In short, an already inadequate and, n my view dangerous, correctional system will become more out of control.

On the other hand, such “tough talk sounds mighty good when you say it fast, doesn’t it? True, it might trample on a few felons’’ rights, but, after all, they are criminals, so we don’t really care about their rights.

Nor the problems the resulting anger, bitterness and realization that the “Justice System” is anything but that in the “big house” will bring.

At least, for now.

Until the whole system shuts down.

But we can continue to play our word games until then, can’t we?

In the meantime, if you want to cut down on the odds of your becoming one of these “human beings turned statistics” after being accused of a crime, you want a criminal defense attorney with experience. If you want that attorney to be me, If you would like that attorney to be me, please feel to call me to arrange a free initial consultation at 617-492-3000.

Have a great, safe and law-abiding weekend!

To view the original story, and charming photograph about which parts of this blog were based, please go to : http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2011/01/governor_announ_2.html?p1=News_links

View the original article here

Continue Reading...