Free legal answers from attorneys - I was arrested on suspicion of DUI related to meth. I have a felony and am on probation but how can I get a DUI when I
Can I get convicted of DUI when I didn’t leave my driveway?
↧
↧
Can more than one person be charged for murder if they have the gunman in custody?
Free legal answers from attorneys - Can more than one suspect that was involved in a robbery be charge with murder if they are not the gunman? If the gunma
↧
W. Murphy, Hypocrite
During her myriad media appearances commenting on the Duke lacrosse case, adjunct law professor Wendy Murphy came up with virtually everything bad she could possibly say about the three falsely accused players. She wondered whether one of them had been abused as a child. She wildly claimed that false accuser Crystal Mangum had been bribed, that exculpatory photographs had been doctored, and that neighbors had claimed the lacrosse players were involved in other sexual offenses. She even managed to work in an oblique Hitler comparison. (A reminder: These erroneous statements and bizarre comparisons did not trouble Poynter, the supposedly good-journalism organization which brought in Murphy to lecture to journalists.)But in all of her media appearances, one area that the adjunct law professor did not explore was a claim that the case was receiving too much attention from journalists. There was no Murphy denunciation of Newsweek for placing the falsely accused players’ mugshots on its cover, under the equally false headline of “Sex, Lies, and Duke.” Nor did the adjunct law professor criticize Nancy Grace for the extraordinary amount of time the HLN host personally devoted to the case (except, of course, on the evening of the exoneration).Imagine my surprise, then, to read a Murphy op-ed in this morning’s Boston Herald, in which she lambasted the media coverage of murder charges against former Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez. “Like a lot of people who don’t follow sports,” Murphy confesses, she hadn’t known much about Hernandez until a couple of weeks ago—just as she hadn’t heard much of other athletes charged with violent crimes, such as Kobe Bryant, Rae Carruth, and Michael Vick. Why does her ignorance about sports matter? Because “it’s hard for people like me to appreciate the wall-to-wall coverage of a story that seems no different than any other gang-banger murders of late.” Curiosity about athletes allegedly committing crimes, Murphy continues, “doesn’t make its answer news.”Murphy’s conclusion? “If sports were better understood as simply entertainment, the prosecution of Hernandez would be correctly framed as a run-of-the-mill alleged gang murder in the news section — and sports writers could spill all the ink they want on how people feel about the guy in their section. With angles firmly separated, nobody would misapprehend the story as proof that some murders are more important than others, or that some people’s lives are more valuable than others. We’ve seen enough violence perpetrated by people of wealth, power and influence to know that crime happens in all communities and at all points along the economic spectrum. It’s time for the news media to start conducting itself in a manner that reflects this reality.”Where was this Wendy Murphy during the lacrosse case, denouncing the media for spending far too much time covering claims against a group of college athletes? It appears as if there’s an exception to this new Murphy rule: crimes allegedly committed by athletes in which members of the media interview Murphy for her opinions deserve wall-to-wall coverage. But if Murphy isn’tseen as an expert, than excess coverage leaves the message that “that some people’s lives are more valuable than others.”Your daily dose of hypocrisy (and media criticism), courtesy of Poynter’s favorite adjunct law professor.
↧
Said in Huntsville
"From America’s Busiest Death Chamber, a Catalog of Last Rants, Pleas and Apologies," is the title of Manny Fernandez' New York Times report. Karl Eugene Chamberlain went to his neighbor’s apartment that night in Dallas under the pretense of borrowing...
↧
A year after Miller confirmed kids are different, how may kids have different sentences?
The question in the title of this post is inspired in part by this public letter posted last week from the director of The Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth. Here are excerpts from the letter (with one key...
↧
↧
Federal and State Wiretaps Up 24%, Primary Target Mobile Devices According to 2012 Report
The Administrative Office of the United States Courts has issued the the 2012 Wiretap Report. The annual report, provides comprehensive data on all federal and state wiretap applications, including the types of crimes investigated, as well as the costs involved and whether arrests or convictions resulted. Read more..
↧
“Five Reasons Cops Want to Legalize Marijuana”
From Rolling Stone. In part: Most people don’t think “cops” when they think about who supports marijuana legalization. Police are, after all, the ones cuffing stoners, and law enforcement groups have a long history of lobbying against marijuana policy reform…. Read more..
↧
Can the Great Writ Regain its Greatness - Daylight Through the AEDPA
This recent term of the Supreme Court of the United States opened the door to new and welcome discussions of federalism. There is no argument here of the importance of federalism in regard to the powers of the states to define and expand rights beyond those guaranteed by the Constitution, but it turns federalism on its head to pretend that its purpose is to limit those rights guaranteed to all by the Constitution. Two cases this term took a back door approach to recognizing this understanding of dual sovereignty in regard to criminal convictions subject to habeas corpus review. To clarify, what is meant by habeas corpus is NOT the habeas corpus enumerated in Article 1, Sec. 9[2] of the Constitution as history demonstrates that the Suspension Clause referred to pretrial detention and not prisoners held in state custody. However, theJudiciary Act of 1867 extended the writ to “all cases where any person may be restrained of his or her liberty in violation of the constitution, or of any treaty or law of the United States.” Judiciary Act, ch. 28, § 1, 14Stat. 385 (1867). Therefore, by 1867, habeas corpus was both a post-conviction remedy and that it applied to state court litigants. The year following passage of the Judiciary Act welcomed the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment defining citizenship and thus who was eligible for individual protection of liberty as well as ensuring that the federal government could restrict the powers of the states if they sought to infringe upon the rights of citizens.It is reasonable to surmise that the Framers included Suspension Clause in 1789 to protect individuals from the power of a strong federal government; it is equally reasonable to surmise that the post-Civil War Congress distrusted state governments to comply with and enforce federal law when it passed the Judiciary Act and the Fourteenth Amendment. As it turns out, the fear of the original Framers was real, just misplaced. Rather than an overly aggressive federal government denying states power, individual states had demonstrated a capacity both of armed rebellion and constitutional defiance all to deny individual liberties to their own constituents. The federal government therefore had to step in to states where policies and practices denied protected and enumerated rights to citizens of the United States. As the nation grew and evolved, as it continues to do, it became clear that states would not necessarily play the protective role envisioned by the Framers; they would instead discriminate- and discriminate in violation of federally guaranteed rights. Within a century of ratification, it finally became clear to the Court that the Reconstructionist Amendments changed fundamentally the relationship between the states and the federal government. State powers never diminished; the federal government merely enhanced its commitment to protecting the very same rights (with a promise that everyone would be included) that it originally promised to protect in the first place. And because the Supreme Court decides, ultimately, the expanse of those rights, habeas corpus must be guaranteed without much limitation. That was so until 1996 when Congress passed - the unbelievably titled "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act". As we now know, that very Congress in 1996 overreached by passing another absurdly-named-bill, the "Defense of Marriage Act".The AEDPA was enacted in response to the tragic Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh in 1995. McVeigh was executed by the people of the United States on June 11, 2001, 8 months after the suicide bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 and 3 months before the airplanes-come-missile attacks of September 11, 2001 calling into question whether the bill was effective at all on the anti-terrorism front. To be sure, capital punishment was pretty effective in those days boasting the years in which highest number of prisoners lived on death row and the highest number of those killed from death row. The national trend, however, since that time has been slowly to seek eradication of the death penalty in state after state after state. The AEDPA failed against terrorism and is now protecting the state power to execute, a power the states are rescinding of their own volition. However, the purpose of habeas corpus review was never to allow for comity; it was to ensure a foundation of rights for all.Yet, the AEDPA restricts the timing of a habeas complaint and regulates the kinds of eligible claims for federal review in a manner so severely restricting the right to habeas corpus that it is as broad an overreach of Congressional power in regard to individual access to federal courts as the DOMA was to individual access to basic human dignity. Just as normal, thinking people cannot be afraid or threatened by their government providing all lawfully wed couples identical treatment in marriage benefits, normal, thinking people cannot be afraid or threatened by their government providing all constitutional claims in criminal cases identical treatment in judicial review. Everything in increments, however. The Court did not this term guarantee a fundamental constitutional right for marriage equality as it did, say, in Loving v. VA striking down a state law criminalizing interracial marriage. Mr. and Mrs. Loving, lawfully married but of different complexions received a sentence of a year in prison, suspended for 25 years, so long as they left the Commonwealth of Virginia. In the judge's words, "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." Indeed, the high court of Virginia - and 15 other states - had previously ruled that the criminal anti-miscegenation statute served a legitimate state purpose of keeping the races segregated. It was not the violation of the First Amendment and all rational thought - including the state's argument that it punished blacks and whites identically for miscegenation (confusing "equal protection" with "equal punishment") - that made the case easy for the Warren Court because (unlike the current battle for equality) the history and the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment revolved around equality of the races. As to the eventual guarantee of marriage equality, this will be a state by state battle and it appears that the tide of public opinion favors dignity and respect for all couples. To be continued...Back to the AEDPA - last term, the Court decided Martinez v. Ryan which created a tiny workaround the AEDPA's provision that the federal court could deny a claim based upon an adequate and independent state ground (procedural default under state law) in that the Court narrowly carved out a cause of action where counsel was ineffective. In Martinez, the Court stated that if counsel fell below an ordinary attorney by failing to raise claims thereby making those claims ineligible for federal review due to a state court restriction, that ineffective assistance of counsel claim could establish an avenue for the federal court to consider the claim. The ruling was "equitable" and not constitutional. Finding cause and prejudice to open the habeas door would not release the inmate from his prison. Rather than entitling the petitioner to relief, it merely allows the federal court to review the underlying claim. Building on Martinez in this term, the Court decided Trevino v. Thaler essentially expanding the rule in Martinez to the initial habeas claim in federal court where the state law does not specifically state that ineffective assistance of counsel claims must first be raised in the initial state court proceeding. Further, the Court decided McQuiggin v. Perkins which avers that a claim of actual innocence can override the strict statute of limitations under AEDPA. The dissents argued that states should have finality over their own convictions and putting their own citizens to death. But the flaw in that idea - and indeed in the AEDPA itself - is that habeas corpus serves the opposite purpose. After the Civil War, it became clear that the federal government would protect fundamental individual liberties but the states were free to expand those liberties at any time. This, indeed, had to be the intent of many of the Framers of the original document even in their compromises to ratify the Constitution, as they had already seen the pitfalls of too weak a national government during the period of the Articles of Confederation. Just as the Court will ensure that states provide minimal liberties to their inhabitants, it will ensure that lawyers provide minimal competence to their clients. And it will have the power and authority to review individual cases to guarantee these minimal basic requirements.Habeas corpus creates a post-conviction remedy when trial and direct appeal has failed - designed to release from confinement those who have been convicted in violation of the Constitution. It did not protect antiquated ideas of federalism; it clamped down on state power. Habeas corpus vows for the supremacy of the United States Constitution as defined by the Supreme Court within the case and controversy presented. It is the flip side of federalism, recognizing that state powers must be constrained by the individual liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. The 1996 AEDPA prohibits Article 3 courts from their constitutional role and seeks to revert to a defunct idea of comity obliterated by the Fourteenth Amendment. There is no state authority to finality of any verdict or sentence rendered in violation of federal constitutional principles...even if those principles have been suggested but not yet verified by the Supreme Court. The "equitable" rather than "constitutional" decisions in Martinez, Trevino and McQuiggin all dance around the fundamental question of whether the AEDPA itself is an overrreach by Congress denying individuals access to the courts. Creating narrow escape hatches through ineffective assistance of counsel claims at any stage of the proceedings and to recognize claims of actual innocence as cause and prejudice relieving the petitioner from the statute's heavy burdens uphold the indefensible AEDPA. The real question is to determine whether the AEDPA impermissibly restricts the First Amendment right to petition.Two principles of federalism emerge from the Court's rulings in this current term striking down federal laws. As to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Court deemed the restriction on state powers to regulate their own voting rules unconstitutional under the 15th Amendment as the use of 40 year old data was deemed an inappropriate basis for federal legislation. It did not say that prejudice had ended or that Congress could not regulate the states in regard to election law, merely that the antiquated data could not support the pre-clearance restriction. As to the DOMA, it ruled that the federal government could not treat some marriages as more equal than others. States have powers (they have never had "rights") to expand liberty, but no federal restriction can usurp the state's power to recognize fundamental individual rights; indeed, once states so acknowledge, the federal government is bound to respect the rules of the states. This really is the essence of federalism, certainly federalism post-Fourteenth Amendment: fundamental rights will be protected by the federal constitution and states may (and should) increase the population subject to those individual liberties in order to guarantee full citizenship privileges and immunities to all. The original Framers believed that states would exercise this very role as it would increase the voting franchise and thus their clout in Congress. But when that went awry through prejudice and discrimination resulting in state oligarchies restricting individual liberties, the roles reversed so that the idea of democracy might flourish by virtue of a strong federal government celebrating the individual over the state.Within this dual sovereignty lies post-conviction habeas corpus. Unlike the obligation of the federal government to respect state expansion of rights and liberties, habeas corpus recognizes that the federal government, too, has an interest in protecting the fundamental rights of individuals. Thus, the role of Article 3 courts is precisely to ensure that the minimal protections of the constitution apply to everyone in every court of these United States. Like the DOMA, the AEDPA seeks to destroy that delicate balance. And the Court seems somewhat receptive to reclaiming its authority with these incremental rulings over the last two terms. Chipping away at the constraints of the AEDPA with endless claims of ineffective assistance of counsel is no answer - counsel must move to eliminate the AEDPA.
↧
Lawsuit: BSO detective wrongfully arrested woman
The ex-wife of a local attorney is suing her former husband and a Broward Sheriff’s detective over what she says was her wrongful arrest following a June 2009 traffic stop. Read more..
↧
↧
How innocent man’s DNA was found at killing scene
When a San Jose man charged with murdering a Monte Sereno millionaire was suddenly freed last month, prosecutors acknowledged he had an airtight alibi–he was drunk and unconscious at a hospital when the victim was killed in his mansion miles away. Read more..
↧
Misconduct in two 1990s death-penalty cases gets ex-prosecutor suspended
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has suspended a former prosecutor for misconduct in gaining capital murder convictions of two men nearly 20 years ago; the court declined a recommendation by the state bar association that he be disbarred. Robert Bradley Miller, former assistant district attorney for Oklahoma County, was suspended from.. Read more..
↧
Seven Texas county jails out of compliance with state regulations, other jail news
Now that the 83rd Texas legislative session is behind us (save for the unhappy and hot special session that starts today), it's time to explore some of the local and regional issues that have arisen while Grits' attention has been diverted. E.g., here are the latest inspection reports for county jails deemed non-compliant with regulations established by the Texas Commission on Jail Standards (TCJS):Ector County (Special)Madison CountyPresidio CountyStonewall CountyYoakum CountyYoung CountyZavala CountyLet's run through the highlights.Ector County (Odessa) is one of the rare Texas jails of any size that's above capacity, though lately not by much.In Madison County (Madisonville), the jail had a leaky roof and the locks to all the cell doors could not be operated electronically, requiring use of a key. (Grits mentioned the other day that locks and keys are more important to human security than most people give them credit for; nowhere is that more true than a jail.)In Presidio County (Marfa), TCJS found fire safety violations, failures to meet training requirements and one jailer working who was unlicensed.Tiny (population-wise, anyway) Stonewall County (Aspermont) was not adequately assessing inmates on intakefor mental health and suicide prevention criteria. Apparently mentally ill inmate incarcerated more than a month without being properly identified and referred. Also inmates weren't being given the required minimum amount of exercise/recreation time, which by TCJS rule is a paltry one hour per day, three days per week. On the day of the inspection, one jailer was working who was not properly licensed.Slightly larger Yoakum County (Plains) had not provided adequate training to its staff and had not tested fire extinguishers or emergency power equipment as frequently as required.Young County (Graham)was using new recruits in the jail before they'd received required training and jailers were not completing the required screening instrument for mental disabilities/suicide prevention.The Zavala County Jail (Crystal City) is another rare jail with two dorms over capacity. Jailers had not received required life-safety training and the required Suicide Screening Form was not being completed immediately upon intake. Click though on the bulleted links above for more detail on any specific county. It's a bit surprising that so many very small jails are on the list and none of the larger jails have lately been deemed non-compliant - for a while there, the big jails topped the list. Perhaps dramatically reduced jail populations have relieved their problems, which were frequently a function of overcrowding and/or understaffing. One hopes it's not an indication that the new administration (their long-time executive director Adan Munoz retired last year, replaced by his long-time understudy, Brandon Wood) has become hesitant to go after the more politically powerful players in larger counties.Maybe it's good news that none of the larger counties (and only Ector among mid-sized counties) are on the commission's s#%t list. Perhaps it's a sign that the larger county jails are improving and professionalizing. Or perhaps it's a bit to early to make that inference. Another possibility is that regulators lately have focused on sanctioning jails in smaller, less-politically potent counties - either because there's less blowback than from sanctioning larger jurisdictions or perhaps because they'd been ignored in the past when the big jails dominated the commission's time. And, of course, the commission does not have adequate inspection staff, so the lack of big counties on the non-compliant list could just mean that TCJS hasn't gotten to those facilities yet this year. ¿Quien sabe? There's not enough information to tell, these are just the questions floating around in my head as I read these reports.In other news garnered from perusing the TCJS website, I saw this new report on staff turnover (pdf) which found that Texas county jails statewide collectively suffered a 2% turnover rate in the month of March. If that figure held year round and jails really do lose 24% of their staff each this year, that's a large number.Another TCJS report (pdf) revealed that, in the month of May, county jails spent $6.45 million housing 5,406 offenders on immigration "holds" for a collective 109,476 bed days waiting for the feds to pick them up.It's been a while since I've attended a Commission on Jail Standards meeting, which as formal public hearings go are remarkably well-attended by county officials and sometimes a hoot. And unfortunately, I'll be on vacation when the next one rolls around in August. It'd be great to have interns or somebody to help cover such TCJS meetings, sanctions, and other county jail issues. (Ditto for juvenile stuff.) The MSM have abandoned the beat, for the most part, and except in spurts this blog does not have the resources to effectively follow far-flung county jail issues, especially where the local media don't provide particularly keen or critical coverage, as is often the case in these rural jurisdictions. At the August commission meeting, which I'll have to miss, there will be a "workshop" (see the agenda [pdf]) where commissioners consider revisions to standards in the following areas:ComplaintsRemote Holding CellsAudible Communications Supervision Outside the Security PerimeterWork AssignmentsKind of important stuff but lately, whether due to staffing cutbacks or simple disinterest, no Texas journalist has been routinely covering that beat. Regrettable.
↧
We told you so.
Randall Hodgkinson and Joanna Labastida won in Astorga v. Kansas, Case No. 12-7568 (U.S. June 24, 2013), obtaining a GVR (certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded) from the U.S. Supreme Court based on the recent case of Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. ___ (2013). The Court's order will likely result in the reversal of Astorga's Hard-50 life sentence in a Leavenworth County murder case. Here is coverage of the case by Doug Berman's Sentencing Law and Policy blog. The Kansas Supreme Court's original opinion in the case is State v. Astorga, 295 Kan. 339 (2012).In Alleyne, the U.S. Supreme Court held that mandatory minimum sentences increase the penalty for a crime, so any fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an “element” of the crime that must be submitted to the jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The case involved a conviction under 18 U.S.C. 924(c) for possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, where the mandatory minimum sentence was increased from 5 years to 7 years based on a judge's finding at sentencing that a firearm was brandished during the offense. The issue in the case was whether jury trial rights applied such that brandishing had to be found beyond a reasonable doubt by a unanimous jury before the 7-year minimum could be imposed by the sentencing court. In Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), the Court held that Sixth Amendment rights applied to any factual findings that increased a maximum punishment. Finding Apprendi applicable, the Alleyne Court held: “Any fact that, by law, increases the penalty for a crime is an ‘element’ that must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . Mandatory minimum sentences increase the penalty for a crime. It follows, then, that any fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an ‘element’ that must be submitted to the jury.” Thus, the fact of whether a firearm was "brandished" during a 924(c) offense was an element of the offense that needed to be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt (or waived).As blogged about here, here, and here (and as is evident in the Astorga GVR), the decision in Alleyne likely means that Kansas' Hard-50 sentencing scheme is unconstitutional. Under K.S.A. 21-6620 and K.S.A. 21-6623 (and under the prior versions of the statute), a sentencing judge imposing a life sentence in a first-degree murder case is allowed to make factual findings of aggravating factors in order to increase a defendant's sentence from 25-years-to-life to 50-years-to-life. Numerous defendants have challenged the Hard-40 and Hard-50 sentencing schemes, arguing that the judicial findings of aggravating factors increase the penalty for the offense (by increasing the mandatory minimum or, conversely, denying parole eligibility) and should be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Ellmaker, 289 Kan. 1132, 1155-56 (2009) (listing several of the numerous challenges to the constitutionality of the Hard-50 statutory scheme). But it will likely be Mr. Astorga that sees the first reversal of his sentence. This case demonstrates why some issues need to be preserved and litigated even if the appellate courts have consistently rejected them (in district court and on appeal). To use a Seinfeld analogy- "[overturning case law] is like knocking over a coke machine. You can't do it in one push. You gotta rock it back and forth a few times, and then it goes over." Randall has been litigating this issue for as long as I can remember (as have other appellate defenders). And Mr. Astorga will likely be the first recipient of all that rocking back and forth of the prior case law.
↧
↧
$19 million in cocaine to be offloaded in Miami Beach
In Miami Beach on Monday, the U.S. Coast Guard plans to offload more than 1,200 pounds of cocaine recently intercepted from a go-fast boat off Costa Rica. Read more..
↧
A Recent Case Win--DA Abandons Deadly Weapon Enhancement and Reduces 3rd Felony Evading Charge to Misdemeanor Level
By Bo Kalabus
bo@kalabuslaw.comwww.rosenthalwadas.comwww.kalabuslaw.com
Office: 972-562-7549
24 Hour Jail Release 214-402-4364
One night during the holiday season, my client was a party at a warehouse in an urban area. Gunfire broke out in the area and my client was afraid, grabbed his friend, and got into his car to leave the scene. The area was extremely crowed as my client moved his car through a sea of people. There was also a lot of noise commotion going on at the time. Apparently the police were trying to stop my client, but he never noticed them because they were on foot and coming up from behind his vehicle. The first time he became aware of the officer's presence was when they banged on his vehicle window.
The client was arrested for using a vehicle to evade arrest. This was all my client was charged with, but the State further alleged my client's vehicle, which was used during the commission of the offense, was a deadly weapon. This allegation would enhance the punishment from a State Jail Felony (180 days up to 2 years jail) to a Third Degree Felony (2 years up to 10 years in jail and up to a $10,000 fine). A deadly weapon finding is serious bad news in many different ways.
I went to work on the case, investigating the facts to gain what leverage we could to negotiate with the prosecutor. After several weeks of hard work on the case, the prosecutor agreed to lower the charges from the felony level to the misdemeanor offense level. This dropped the potential punishment range down to 0 days to 1 year in jail and $0 up to a $4,000 fine from which the client received deferred adjudication and probation. Better yet, the client will not have his rights cut in half and have to deal with the stigma of being a convicted felon.
As you can expect, my client was relieved and very pleased with the result-and also a little wiser from an experience that could have turned out to be much worse.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Semi Rollover causes westbound blockage- I84 at Gowen
IDAHO STATE POLICE NEWS RELEASE
District 3 Patrol 700 S. Stratford Dr., Meridian 83642
(208) 846-7550
Fax (208) 846-7520
For Immediate Release: 07/02/13 05:55 a.m.
Please direct questions to the District Office
Idaho State Police is currently investigating a semi rollover westbound on I84 at milepost 57 near Gowen Rd, in Boise.
Motorists should expect delays in the area, as the westbound lanes of travel are currently blocked, and traffic is being diverted off of exit 57.
-------------
↧
How do I Beat This Reckless Driving Charge?
First of all, you have to understand that most reckless driving tickets in Virginia simply won’t be beaten and dismissed completely. There are over a dozen different versions of reckless driving in Virginia and due to the very nature of all the statutes, it’s hard to discuss all of them in one article. But we [...]
↧
↧
I Met a Girl at a Party and She Now Claims That I Raped Her. I Do Not Know What To Do
Date rape or acquaintance rape is serious allegation in which you need a lawyer’s assistance right away. This type of sex crime is extremely complex and you need a skilled lawyer to represent you in this type of special sex crime case. This type of allegation can ruin your future job prospects and standing the [...]
↧
Football player with Ohio NFL team charged with attempted murder
There are many acts, whether or not they are complete, for which an individual can face serious charges and penalties. This may be counterintuitive. It may seem unfair or be unclear why someone can still face punishment for a...
↧
Does Your Director Have a Guilty Conscience? SEC to Press for More Admissions
Some of the SEC’s enforcement targets are no longer in denial, or at least they won’t be if a recent policy shift at the regulator takes hold. In a widely-reported letter on June 17, 2013 and then again in public Read More![]()
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
