Quantcast
Channel: Recent Criminal Law posts - Justia BlawgSearch.com
Viewing all 72156 articles
Browse latest View live

FEDERAL ATF AGENTS ARE RAMPING UP GRAND JURY INDICTMENTS OF ONLINE FIREARMS SALES IN FLORIDA

$
0
0
Your Tampa Bay federal criminal lawyer has been seeing a significant uptick in federal investigations of internet sales of weapons and other firearms in the Middle District of Florida. Most Federal weapons investigations are typically conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) unless weapons are found incident to a drug trafficking investigation which would trigger an investigation conducted by the DEA or FBI.ATF warning to individuals selling guns and firearms is not to try to get around the background check requirements.ATF InvestigatorsApparently individual gun owners are being targeted who possess firearms legally, but then sell the firearms in a manner that the feds deem unlawful. For example, one young man to help pay his way thru college allegedly was 'flipping firearms' by buying the weapons at Walmart and other legal distribution centers, holding them for a short time, then selling them at a markup on the internet. The problem according to the ATF agents is that the paperwork a gun buyer must sign to purchase a firearm under oath establishes that the weapon is for personal use and not for sale. Also, in an effort to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, ATF does not want private sales of firearms to disrupt the law requiring background checks to buy a weapon.Here are seven factors ATF will consider in making a determination as to whether a specific weapon was bought for personal use or for sale.1. How long was the firearm possessed by a buyer before it was re-sold? Holding a weapon for a short period of time before selling.2. Buying the weapon for the mere purpose of soon selling it.3. Were the firearms used or were they kept in new condition in order to get a higher sale price.4. Being a party to multiple sales.5. Using the internet to find purchases willing to pay more than the prevailing fair market value for a firearm.6. Lack of a complete and effective investigation into the background check of the buyer to determine whether the buyer has a criminal record. The issue is not whether the buyer has a criminal record, but whether the background check was avoided in the sell. In fact, the 'buyer' may be an ATF agent.7. Failure to file the appropriate forms as required by federal law (see below).Further, ATF agents have let it be known that they do not deem it a defense that the target who bought a gun at Walmart and who sells it two months later has the buyer of that gun sign an affidavit that he has now criminal history and intends to keep the gun and not sell it yet again. In the ATF mission statement for firearms 'gun purchasers' and those who seek to 'divert firearms from legitimate trade to criminal use" are of special concern: In addition to aiding the enforcement of Federal requirements for gun purchases, compliance inspections of existing licensees focus on assisting law enforcement to identify and apprehend criminals who illegally purchase firearms.The inspections also help improve the likelihood that crime gun traces will be successful, since inspectors educate licensees in proper record keeping and business practices. Compliance inspections target licensees likely to divert firearms from legitimate trade to criminal use and dealers with a history of poor compliance.Further, the FTA in an open letter notes that private sellers have no way to conduct an appropriate background check of a buyer and therefore must file the appropriate forms or be subject to prosecution.To the best of my knowledge these cases are now being prepared for presentation before federal grand juries for indictments. It's important to note that many Federal firearms violations trigger minimum mandatory sentences under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.  Anyone being investigated faces immediate arrest and should contact a Clearwater criminal defense lawyer who is well versed in Federal law in the Middle District of Florida.

NH - Paying off his debt to society, inside prison and out

$
0
0
Original Article 07/07/2013 By RAY DUCKLER [name withheld] knows people think he’s a monster. He’s heard it in the violent shaking of his apartment walls. He’s read it in the letters he receives in the mail, and in the emails he sees online. And he’s seen it in the eyes of anyone who knows his story, that he served time for felonious sexual assault. The label sticks close to him, like a tail zigzagging behind a kite, always there, always following, even after a quick change of... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit our blog for full links, videos, studies and more! ]]

Assault, Felony Assault, and "Dangerous Offense" Laws and Sentencing

$
0
0
A person will face "Dangerous Offense" Aggravated Assault charges if a deadly weapon is displayed or used in a crime. 1329263_pistol.jpgAn assault charge may be brought as a Misdemeanor or Felony (Aggravated). A person may be guilty of misdemeanor assault if they put someone in fear of bodily harm, touch someone with the intent of physical injury, or cause any physical injury to someone. An assault charge will be elevated to a felony assault, a more serious charge, if they commit simple assault and any of eleven enumerated circumstances are present. Among these circumstances include: a serious personal injury results, a deadly weapon is used, or the assault is made on a law enforcement officer. Recently in Arizona, a man allegedly threatened to kill a couple during a home invasion. Fortunately, neither was hurt. It was reported in the news, that the man broke into the house wearing only blue jeans and a blonde wig and carrying a gun. At some point the husband was able to retrieve his own gun and he shot the man who broke in. The suspect ran from the scene and hid in a woman's house nearby before the authorities caught him. He will face two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, two counts of kidnap-apprehension of injury and one count of burglary. If the man in this case had come in without a gun, threatening to kill the husband and wife, he would be facing fewer potential penalties. In such a case, he might be charged with simple assault and burglary for placing the couple in fear for their life. In cases where a deadly weapon is involved, penalties can be very severe depending on the defendant's prior record. Many aggravated assaults are charged in spite of no actual injury to the victim. If convicted, a person guilty of committing an offense such as the this one described, will still be exposed to long term mandatory prison sentencing, despite the fact they were not injured. Even a first-time offender may face 5-15 years in prison. However, someone who had been convicted of a "dangerous offense" even once before could face 10-20 years in prison For a third conviction, a defendant could be penalized with a prison term of 15-25 years. Arizona has followed a mandatory sentencing scheme for decades. It requires mandatory prison for people found guilty of a second felony or people who are guilty of "dangerous crimes". A person may be guilty of a "Dangerous Offense" under A.R.S. 13-105 (13) if a deadly or dangerous weapon is used, or displayed as a threat in a criminal offense. This includes, of course, guns, but also knives and cars and anything else intended to be used as a dangerous weapon. In addition to mandatory minimum sentences for crimes like aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a court may consider aggravating or mitigating factors in meting out a sentence. Mitigating factors might include a lack of a criminal record, good character, or model background. For example, if the man described above was a straight A college student with no prior felony or misdemeanor arrests and a background of charitable work, an experienced criminal defense attorney could argue that he should receive the minimum sentence for aggravated assault available to him. Similarly, a defense attorney who was able to show a connection between a troubled childhood and the aggravated assault might also be able to argue for the lowest possible sentence.

Megan's Law is invoked

$
0
0
A Nassau Sex Crime Lawyer said that, this is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered April 1, 1996, convicting him of attempted rape in the first degree and sex abuse in...

4th of July DUI Checkpoint Video

Drunk driving will not be tolerated

$
0
0
Defendant was charged with criminal felony drunk driving. Defendant then moved to vacate his 2003 misdemeanor conviction of Operating a Motor Vehicle under the Influence of Alcohol which was entered via a plea of guilty. According to the defendant, in...

"In Opposition to the Mandatory Registration of Juvenile Sexual Offenders"

$
0
0
The title of this post is the title of this short paper by David Katner, which is now available via SSRN. Here is the abstract: The mandatory registration of juvenile sex offenders incorrectly assumes that the same dynamics of adult...

New Sentencing Phase Trial in California Case

$
0
0
"California convict gets another chance to escape death row," is by Michael Doyle for the McClatchy Washington Bureau. Richard L. Phillips has learned a lot about the law in the decades since a Madera County murder landed him on California’s...

Yellow Cab driver accused of drunk driving in Denver

$
0
0
Sometimes when a person is arrested and charged with a crime, they might face problems with their employer. If the charge that they face, or a conviction that they receive from a trial somehow impedes their ability to perform their...

Blackfoot Man Sentenced for Distributing Meth

$
0
0
POCATELLO – Ernesto Guerrero, 35, of Blackfoot, Idaho, was sentenced today in United States District Court to 60 months in prison for distribution of five grams or more of actual methamphetamine, U.S. Attorney Wendy J. Olson announced. U.S. District Edward J. Lodge also ordered Guerrero to serve three years of supervised release. He pleaded guilty to the charge on March 18, 2013.According to the plea agreement, on August 23, 2011, Guerrero arranged for and sold more than five grams of actual methamphetamine to another individual in exchange for $1,400. The distribution took place near Bannock and Truchot Roads in Fort Hall, Idaho. Guerrero admitted to knowing the substance he distributed was methamphetamine.The case was investigated by Idaho State Police and the Fort Hall Police Department.

Several DUI Arrests Made on July 4th in Northern Nevada

$
0
0
The Nevada Highway Patrol arrested five people in and around Reno and Sparks for violating Nevada DUI law on July Fourth. Four of the drivers were under the influence of alcohol while the fifth driver was under the influence of marijuana. Police also issued several traffic citations regarding seat belts and child safety seat violations. Las Vegas DUI Nevada DUI Law prohibits drivers from operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. It's automatically illegal to drive with a blood alcohol content of .08 or higher even if the driver is being safe. A common defense to DUI charges is that the breath testing equipment was faulty.

SSRN - In Opposition to the Mandatory Registration of Juvenile Sexual Offenders

$
0
0
Original Article Diigo Post Excerpt: The mandatory registration of juvenile sex offenders incorrectly assumes that the same dynamics of adult sex offenders apply to juveniles. In doing so, this group of juveniles is labeled and placed in a category that will ultimately hinder their development, rather than contribute to their rehabilitation. Accordingly, this mandated registration will have a negative effect on these individuals along with society as a whole based upon how they are... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit our blog for full links, videos, studies and more! ]]

Judgement is upheld

$
0
0
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 6, 1992, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (four counts) and criminal possession of a...

Sentence that was imposed was illegal

$
0
0
The criminal defendant was indicted by a Kings County Grand Jury and charged with grand larceny in the second degree and 28 counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree. Defendant, a licensed physician, maintained an office at a private clinic, at which he provided certain care and services primarily to indigent persons, some of whom were insured under Medicaid. When a patient arrived at the Medical Center, the receptionist customarily filled in the top portion of the official Medicaid invoices by inserting the patient's name and Medicaid number, the treating physician's name and Medicaid provided number and the physician's address, specialty and telephone number. After treating each patient, defendant would complete the invoice by describing the services rendered and then signing the certification attesting that he rendered the services. The invoices subsequently were used to obtain Medicaid reimbursement. A Kings County grand larceny attorney said that the charges against defendant arose from his submission of certain of such invoices to the New York City Department of Social Services seeking Medicaid reimbursement for services allegedly never rendered. A principal focus of defendant's appeal from his convictions is the claim there was no jurisdiction to prosecute him for these crimes in Kings County because the invoices were filed in New York County and the payments were received in Queens and Nassau Counties. The court conclude otherwise. Paragraph (a) of subdivision 1 of CPL 20.40 provides that a county has jurisdiction of the trial of an offense if conduct occurred within the county sufficient to establish an element of the crime. Accordingly, geographical jurisdiction to prosecute is a question of fact. However, since jurisdiction is not itself an element of the crime, it need only be established by a preponderance of the evidence. What is required is that jurisdiction be fairly and reasonably inferred from all the facts and circumstances in evidence. On the record before the court, there was sufficient proof of conduct in Kings County to establish elements of each crime of which defendant was convicted. The elements of the crime of offering a false instrument in the first degree are (1) knowledge that the instrument is false, (2) intent to defraud the State or any of its subdivisions, and (3) presentation of the instrument for filing. While it is undisputed that the incriminating invoices, which constitute written instruments within the meaning of section 175.35 of the Penal Law, were completed and signed by defendant at the clinic in Kings County, the acts of completion are not of themselves elements of the crime. What they do suffice to show--in view of the other evidence in the case--is that defendant had knowledge of the falsity of the invoices when he completed them in Kings County and that he had the intent to defraud while in Kings County. Thus, there can be no question that jurisdiction to prosecute the false instrument charges existed in that county. Embezzlement was also considered. The court discussed the charge of larceny by false pretenses. The elements of that crime are (1) an intent to deprive an owner of property, (2) the making of a false representation, (3) knowledge of the falsity, (4) obtaining the property of another, and (5) that the owner of the property was induced by the representation to give up the property. As with the crime of offering a false instrument, defendant's completion of the forms in Kings County suffices to establish the elements of both intent and knowledge of falsity in that county for jurisdictional purposes. Defendant also asserts error in Criminal Term's refusal to admit in evidence certain inconsistent statements of prosecution witnesses. After those witnesses had testified that the services they received differed from those listed in the invoices, they were confronted with other documents bearing their signatures that indicated that the services certified by defendant in the invoices actually had been rendered. Despite the fact that these proffered documents were admissible as prior inconsistent statements, Criminal Term excluded them as inadmissible hearsay. The Court coclude, nevertheless, that reversal is not warranted. After witness vehemently maintained from the stand that she never received the spinal X-ray that defendant had certified, defense counsel sought to introduce a prior subscribed statement containing the words "X-ray of spine", to which Berry had added "This X-ray was taken". When asked if she recalled being shown this statement, The witness said "Yes". Although Criminal Term refused to admit that portion of the writing, defense counsel succeeded in reading the statement aloud for the jury to hear. Since the jury was aware that the statement contradicted witness' testimony, there is no significant probability that admission of the writing would have resulted in acquittal and, on this record, the error was harmless. The circumstances surrounding the statement are somewhat different. The defendant's initial failure to lay a foundation for the introduction of witness’ inconsistent statement was cured by the prosecution in its redirect examination of the witness and the court's denial of defendant's subsequent re-offer of the statement thus was error. It is apparent from the record, however, that the jury was made aware of the inconsistency, and, here again, the court conclude that the error was harmless because of the strength of the inculpatory evidence in the case and the lack of probability that acquittal would have resulted had the writing been admitted. The court does agree with the defendant, however, that the sentence imposed was illegal. He was not only ordered and sentenced to provide free medical care and service to the poor of the community for a minimum of 10 hours per week for 72 consecutive weeks, but in the event of willful failure to abide by any of the terms of sentencing or probation, he was to be subject to a maximum term of 4 years incarceration, consecutively on each count, or a total maximum of 32 years imprisonment. Although recently amended to permit the performance of services for a public or not-for-profit corporation as a condition of probation upon conviction of a misdemeanor or class D or E felony, the law in existence when the sentence was imposed did not authorize the imposition of such services. Moreover, the consecutive sentences, totaling a maximum of 32 years of imprisonment in the event the terms of sentencing and/or probation were not met, are improper, since paragraph (c) of subdivision 1 of section 70.30 of the Penal Law limits the aggregate maximum term of consecutive sentences to 20 years. Accordingly, while we affirm the convictions, we remit the matter to a different judge at Criminal Term for resentencing.

"14 days video surveillance of defendant’s back yard by a pole camera unreasonable, but [good-faith exception] applies"

$
0
0
FourthAmendment.com excerpts this interesting case from the Eastern District of Tennessee. In part: Although the precise length of reasonable warrantless video surveillance has not been established, the Sixth Circuit in Anderson-Bagshaw has suggested that three weeks is too long. No....

Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of Jury Trial for Sturgis Police Officers

$
0
0
Last month, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals determined that a jury should decide if two Sturgis police officers, Damon Knapp and Mark Stoneburner, used excessive force against a young man and his mother when entering their home following an alleged shoplifting incident without a warrant. Charles Smith, 20, was a suspect in an alleged shoplifting incident at a Sturgis Walgreens; he was suspected of stealing a $14.99 phone charger, a misdemeanor theft. In 2010, the Walgreens store reported to police that a phone charger had been stolen. According to a news article at the Detroit News, someone found a package in the store with a portion of the charger cut off. When confronted by the store manager, Charles Smith walked home and did not remain at the store until police arrived. Later when Knapp and Stoneburner arrived at Smith's home, Stoneburner allegedly entered without a warrant, pulling the suspect onto a deck where it is alleged by Smith that officers slammed his head against a railing while handcuffing him. A 12-page opinion issued by the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals stated that "Shoplifting of this sort offers no reason by itself for banging a suspect's head against a wall." The panel also affirmed a ruling made by a district court judge that the officers involved are not immune to litigation. Knapp and Stoneburner's attorney maintained that the suspect was resisting arrest; the federal appeals court found that the decision as to whether the officers or Smith are giving a true account of the incident should be left up to a jury. The opinion ultimately found that if Smith did not resist arrest, the officers may have used excessive force. Smith's mother also claimed that she was injured while trying to intervene during the incident at the home. As all seasoned Michigan criminal appeals attorneys know, police officers are not beyond making errors in judgment. Mistakes can be made at nearly any point in the course of an arrest, or even at trial.

Murphy on Forensic DNA Phenotyping

$
0
0
Erin Murphy (New York University School of Law) has posted Legal and Ethical Issues in Forensic DNA Phenotyping on SSRN. Here is the abstract: In the recent Supreme Court case of Maryland v. King, which addresses the constitutionality of compulsory...

Tavares man arrested on charge of attacking accused child molester

$
0
0
7-9-2013 Florida: A 34-year-old Tavares man was arrested on a charge of battery and aggravated stalking over the weekend after he allegedly attacked a man accused of sexually molesting a... [[This,an article summary.Please visit my website for complete article, and more.]]

Amber Alert No Hindrance to Child Abductor Crossing the Border

$
0
0
A recent child abduction by a father in Colorado, who fled with his three-year-old son to Manitoba, reminded me of the angst and heartbreak these cases bring with them. Monte Turner, of Colorado, was barred by court order from contacting his former wife and their son Luke Turner. However, as is common in abduction cases, […]

“FactCheck: are Interpol red notices often wrong?”

$
0
0
The Conversation on July 7, 2013 released the following: “”The Australian Federal Police takes [red notices] very seriously but knows it must examine the veracity or otherwise of those claims because quite often claims, even against Australian citizens who’ve had red notices out against them, have been found to be wrong.” – Then immigration minister […]
Viewing all 72156 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images