The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a dismissal of a qui tam suit against Quest Diagnostics that was filed by three relators, one of which was the defendant's former general counsel. Fair Lab. Practices Assocs. v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., 2d Cir., No. 11-1565-cv, 10/25/13. Joan Rodgers of the ABA/BNA Lawyer's Manual on Professional Conduct recently wrote an article about the Court's opinion: Company’s Former General Counsel Ruined Qui Tam Action by Telling Ex-Client’s Secrets. I commend it to you.Essentially, the Court affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the qui tam based on a court's "inherent power" to manage its own affairs. Specifically, the Court ruled that the False Claims Act does not preempt state ethical rules governing the practice of law. In that instance, the Court found that the relator and defendant's former counsel had violated New York Rule 1.9(c) which prohibits a lawyer from revealing the confidences of a client or using the confidences or secrets of a client to the disadvantage of a client -- a rule similar to that found in most state bar rules. The Court found that the relator had used and revealed confidential information which he had obtained in his capacity as counsel for the defendant. As a result, the Court affirmed the District Court's remedy of not only dismissing the qui tam suit, but also disqualifying the other relators and their counsel who together with Quest's former counsel had brought the qui tam.What is in unusual about this case is that a court, based on its "inherent powers," dismissed a case based on a relator's violation of law, i.e., a rule governing the practice of law, as opposed to a violation of the False Claims Act's procedures. The Court presents its decision as just a balancing test of "varying federal interests" in deciding on whether to apply the state bar rule and affirm the matter's dismissal. That too is unusual because defendants in qui tam cases frequently allege that the relator has violated the law in bringing a qui tam claim. Indeed, relators are commonly accused of stealing records, of participating in the fraud on which they base their qui tam, and in some instances, of even perpetrating or being the mastermind of the fraud in which they accuse a corporate defendant of engaging. Such misconduct by the relator, however, normally only serves as a basis to reduce a qui tam award. See 31 USC 3730(d)(3)("if the court finds that the action was brought by a person who planned and initiated the violation . . . upon which the action was brought, then the court may . . . reduce the share of the proceeds of the action which the person would otherwise receive"). Indeed, the False Claims Act only bars a relator from bringing a qui tam or receiving a recovery if the relator is convicted of the criminal conduct relating to the claim brought in the relator's complaint. See 31 USC 3730(d)(3); see also Order Dismissing Relator in USA ex rel Schroeder v. CH2M Hill et al, E.D. WA., No. CV-09-5038-LRS. In short, the Second Circuit does not really explain why this violation of law concerning a lawyer's duty not to disclose client confidences warrants dismissal of a qui tam when compared with other violations of law by relators.A. Brian AlbrittonNovember 17, 2013
Court Affirms Dismissal of Qui Tam and Disqualification of Relators' Counsel Due to Relator's Violation of Attorney Ethics Rule
↧
↧
Case o' The Week: Secret Agent Man & Jury Instruction Plan - Agency in federal criminal law
“Secret agent man.”Works better as a song, than a theory of the defense.United States v. Oliver King, 2013 WL 6038242 (9thCir. Nov. 15, 2013), decision available here.Players: Decision by Judge Nguyen, joined by Judges Thomas and DJ Dearie. Facts: King, a Canadian, liked guns. Id. at *1. He was unable to legally sell them in the United States, so he paired up with a US citizen named Zarandi. Id. King proposed, and Zarandi agreed, that King would do the “legwork” for a firearms business in Oregon. Id. King filled-out the paperwork and set up a corporation called, “MHPS.” Id.Zarandi was listed as the CEO and sole ‘responsible person’ on the federal firearm application. Id. The application was approved, and along with other more-straightforward transactions King also bought guns – and offered to sell them, in the United States – behind Zarandi’s back. Id.at *2. He was ultimately arrested, charged with, and convicted of – among other things – unlawfully dealing in firearms. Id.Issue(s): “King’s proposed instructions stated . . . that he could not be convicted of unlicensed firearms dealing unless the government proved that he was not ‘authorized to act on behalf of another person or corporation that did have a license as a firearm dealer.’ King sought these instructions so that he could argue to the jury that he was not guilty of unlicensed firearms dealing because he only acted on behalf of MHPS, a licensed corporate entity.” Id.at *4. “With regard to his conviction for unlawfully dealing in firearms, King contends that the district court erred in refusing to give his proposed jury instructions, which required the government to prove that King was not acting as an authorized agent of a federal firearms licensee.” Id. at *1.Held: “In an issue of first impression in our circuit, we hold that King is not entitled to such an instruction.” Id. Of Note: King was also convicted of making material false statements to border agents by not revealing that he was entering the US from Canada to mess with guns. Id. at *8. In reality, however, his lies made no difference: he was the target of an ICE investigation, was being followed and surveilled as soon as he was “allowed” to clear customs, and because he was the target of an investigation it didn’t matter what lies he offered for his reason to cross. Were his lies “material,” because he was going to be admitted regardless so ICE agents could continue their investigation? Yes, says Judge Nguyen: “actual influence is not required, so long as the misstatement has a propensity to influence agency action.” Id. at *8. This disappointing holding forecloses a thoughtful counter-argument laid out in 2011 by dissenting Judge Tashima in United States v. Howard. How to Use: King’s interesting theory was that he didn’t violate the “dealing in gun” statute because he was an agent of an authorized person or corporation – here, MHPS. Judge Nguyen isn’t keen on that theory, rejecting it as a matter of statutory interpretation. Id. at *4. Of broader import, Judge Nguyen spends a fair amount of time discussing agency theory in the context of federal criminal law. Id. at *5 (discussing with approval United States v. Fleischli, 305 F.3d 643, 652 (7th Cir. 2002)). King is worth a sobering read if mulling an agency defense in another context (such as the purchase of machineguns, the agency theory rejected in Fleischli). For Further Reading: Can the government supersede with a mandatory minimum charge in retaliation for the defendant filing a suppression motion? Sure – despite the clear spirit of the recent Holder memo, discouraging such vindictive use of mand-mins. Here’s a more interesting question: can the district court dismiss the mand-min count for vindictive prosecution? Sure, explains the Sixth Circuit, in a great new decision: United States v. LaDeau, available here.(“Concluding that the government had not rebutted the presumption of vindictiveness, the district court dismissed the superseding indictment. The government filed this appeal. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the superseding indictment, we affirm.”) This welcome win by Nashville AFPD Michael Holley deserves to be imported into the Ninth. “Secret Agent Man” graphic from http://www.secretagentman.net/Steven Kalar, Federal Public Defender ND Cal, website at www.ndcalfpd.org
↧
Mortgage Broker Receives Hefty Sentence for Defrauding Lenders
Jose Armando Alvarado, 64, Miami, Florida, a former licensed real estate associate and mortgage broker, was sentenced to serve 135 months in prison for his role in a $2.4 million mortgage fraud scheme. The defendant was found guilty on Sept. 9, 2013, of eight counts of wire fraud and six counts of bank fraud and […]
↧
PUERTO RICO - GPS Ankle Bracelets Now Have the Ability to Listen and Record Conversations
Original Article
11/16/2013
An update on the creeping surveillance state: An alarming report out of Puerto Rico finds that an ankle bracelet given to suspects out on bail or parole may have the ability to listen to and record conversations.
A Corrections Department agent, who works at the Puerto Rico Pretrial Services Office’s monitoring center for defendants free on bail, placed a GPS ankle bracelet on the court podium and made a call from the device to a technician of the SecureAlert...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit our blog for full links, videos, studies and more! ]]
↧
Short Wins - the Greg Poe Vindicates An AFPD's Reputation Edition
Last week's wins are below - and there are some great reads.
But today, let's congratulate Greg Poe for his work challenging sanctions imposed on a fine career AFPD in the Sixth Circuit.
Here's a link to the opinion.
Nice work, Greg!
To the victories!
1. U.S. v. Christie, Second Circuit: The district court denied Appellant's motion for a reduction of sentence based on the sentencing guidelines range, even though Appellant was eligible for such a reduction. On appeal, Appellant's case was vacated and remanded to the district court because the court failed to provide an explanation of its decision that was sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.
Defense Attorney: John W. Brewer
2. U.S. v. Chavez, Tenth Circuit: After being deemed not competent to stand trial, the government won a motion to have Appellant involuntarily medicated. Because the government did not present evidence of an individualized treatment plan for the Appellant, the Tenth Circuit found clear error, vacated the court order, and remanded for further proceedings.
Defense Attorneys: John T. Carlson and Warren R. Williamson
3. U.S. v. Oyegoke-Eniola, Tenth Circuit: Appellant pled guilty to mail fraud and making a false statement on an immigration document. Finding that the district court improperly imposed enhancements under the sentencing guidelines, the sentence was vacated and the case remanded.
Defense Attorneys: Stephen K. Christiansen and Kelley M. Marsden
↧
↧
Featured Paper: Siri, Can You Keep a Secret? A Balanced Approach to Fourth Amendment Principles and Location Data
Frank Lin, a 3L at the University of Oregon, has a new law review article out entitled "Siri, Can You Keep a Secret? A Balanced Approach to Fourth Amendment Principles and Location Data."
I asked him to comment on his motivation for the article and he responded as follows:
I was drawn to this topic because privacy is one of the most important issues facing the American public today and it is one that has recently come to the forefront of public policy discourse. The rapid development and accessibility of technology has allowed Americans to reach new levels of interconnectivity. The implication of this is that, whether intentional or not, more details about our lives are being shared with public and private actors. The application of Fourth Amendment protection in a world where our access to privacy is quickly evolving poses a challenge for courts and law enforcement, especially in the context of location data. To this end, I wanted to advocate for an approach that is easily applicable, and more importantly, one that balances legitimate government interests and privacy concerns of the People.
An excerpt from his introduction:
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides the right for “people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Underlying this phrase are guiding principles that have deep roots reaching as far as the Roman Empire. For instance, Roman statesman Cicero stated, “[w]hat is more inviolable . . . than the house of a citizen[?] . . . This place of refuge is so sacred to all men, that to be dragged from thence is unlawful.”
But how do historic principles apply to modern society? The Fourth Amendment traditionally protected papers located in homes or in luggage. Today, however, information is no longer constrained to fading parchment. Information and methods of communication have transcended into a digital era, where ideas and beliefs reside in computer systems in distant locations that are maintained by third parties. Thus, it is not always clear how the Fourth Amendment applies to the information age.…Some worry that law enforcement’s use of location data can pose an objective harm, as they fear that the government will subject the public to non-stop surveillance. Judge Flaum from the Seventh Circuit noted that “[t]he constitutional ill of prolonged or mass use of GPS technology would not necessarily be based on the information acquired by the device but on the fact of the government’s gaze.”
The legality of law enforcement’s use of location data remains ambiguous in the absence of clear direction from either the judiciary or the legislature. Further, the majority of the existing scholarship on the subject remains unworkably vague and hostile toward the government’s use of location data to aid in the investigation and prosecution of crime. This Comment proposes a standard for government access to location data that is not only practical, but also one that balances the legitimate interests of law enforcement and the privacy concerns of citizens.
↧
Ohlin on Co-Perpetration
Jens David Ohlin (Cornell University - School of Law) has posted Co-Perpetration: German Dogmatik or German Invasion? (The Law and Practice of the International Criminal Court: A Critical Account of Challenges and Achievements, Carsten Stahn ed., Oxford University Press, Forthcoming)...
↧
Godsey: 'Texas now on cutting edge of efforts to free the innocent'
Nice to see my employers at the Innocence Project of Texas (IPOT) getting national kudos for the group's legal and policy work in light of the ruling today overturning convictions of the "San Antonio Four." Wrote Mark Godsey at the Huffington Post:Today in Texas, four wrongfully convicted women--known as the "San Antonio Four"--had their convictions overturned and were freed. This came about thanks to the latest in a line of innovations Texas lawmakers and the Innocence Project of Texas have devised to help the wrongfully convicted. Often thought of as a rough-and-tumble, "Hang 'Em High" state--and still leading the nation in capital punishment--Texas is surprisingly now a trendsetter for innocence reforms. Go here to read the full story.The legislation Godsey credits with helping secure the overturned convictions (see more on that here) was something your correspondent worked on for several years on IPOT's behalf before coming to terms with prosecutors to push the bill across the finish line. Sen. John Whitmire carried the bill for three sessions before it finally passed, and Rep. Sylvester Turner was the house sponsor. Thanks again to both of them. And congrats in particular to Mike Ware, the former head of the Dallas County Conviction Integrity Unit, an IPOT boardmember and the lead attorney who worked on the women's habeas corpus writs. Given how long it took to get the law changed, this was a particularly gratifying win.
↧
New York continues to rely on the Frye test ... cont
Clearly, the court would not allow the witness to testify that the statement given by defendant is false as that is a question exclusively for the jury. With respect to the other issues, New York continues to rely on...
↧
↧
Eighth Circuit Finds Sufficient Evidence in Multiple-User Child Pornography Case – U.S. v. Landsdown
In child pornography crimes involving a shared household computer, the defendant often argues that prosecutors haven’t proven that he or she was the one who downloaded the material. In my experience as a defense attorney specializing in cyber crimes, prosecutors often respond by attempting to do just that: showing that the defendant was the only one home when the material was downloaded, for example, or that another household member didn’t have access to the software used to download it. But in United States v. Landsdown, the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals didn’t cite any arguments in this vein when it upheld the conviction of Ronnie Landsdown. Rather, the court said a reasonable jury could have chosen to believe prosecutors’ version of the story, over Landsdown’s arguments.
Ronnie Landsdown shared a house in western Missouri with five other people and a houseguest. Police noticed that an IP address in Landsdown’s name was sharing child pornography. After getting a warrant, they searched the house and found pornography on a laptop and a desktop computer. Housemate David Guy Hicks admitted to downloading the pornography on the laptop but not the desktop. The desktop was used by all six roommates and the guest, was not password protected and was located in a common area of the house. Landsdown owned the computer, fixed it when broken, paid for the Internet connection and created the user account used to download the pornography. He did not install the software used to download it. Three other roommates denied downloading it; two others had individual user accounts or folders. Prosecutors charged Landsdown with receiving the child pornography, and a jury eventually convicted him and sentenced him to five years in prison.
On appeal, Landsdown argued that the court should have granted his motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to prove knowing receipt. The Eighth Circuit disagreed. Under a deferential review standard, it found that a rational jury could have decided that the evidence pointed to Landsdown. He owned the computer and the Internet connection, the Eighth Circuit noted. Furthermore, the appeals court said, Landsdown was nonchalant when one of his roommates told him there was child pornography on the computer; he allegedly shrugged it off and said he’d look into it later. Because everyone in the house denied downloading the pornography, the Eighth said, the jury as trier of fact could reasonably conclude that the prosecution’s testimony was more credible than Landsdown’s. With that, it affirmed the district court.
This decision is surprising for its brevity—it’s three pages long—as well as for its lack of direct evidence connecting Landsdown to the crime. The Eighth Circuit is, of course, right that juries are entitled to a lot of deference. Juries hear witness testimony in person; appeals judges can work only from whatever written record this produces. But where there’s nothing on the record to support a jury’s decision, an appeals court can and should reverse the jury. American courts require that the accused be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; in this case, the charge was knowingly receiving child pornography. Yet the strongest pieces evidence against the defendant are the denials of his housemates—all of which are just as self-interested as his denial—and the fact that he paid the Internet bills. More should be required to send a person to prison for five years and brand him for life as a sex offender.
↧
Jetpack-Peddling Ponzi Schemer Faces Prison, Deportation
A Utah man who perpetrated a massive Ponzi scheme that caused nearly $7 million in losses was sentenced to a 5-year prison term - after which he will face deportation back to his native Great Britain. John S. Dudley, 59, received the sentence from U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby after previously pleading guilty to a single count of wire fraud. While wire fraud carries a maximum term of twenty years per count, Dudley's plea agreement included a recommendation by prosecutors for a five-year term. Dudley, a citizen of Great Britain, is expected to face deportation after serving his sentence.
According to authorities, Dudley began pitching a variety of investment programs to potential investors as early as 2007. These investments, including forex trading, mining speculation, and even a human jetpack rocket suit, were touted by Dudley at investment club meetings also known as "bounce nights" or "Tashi group meetings." Investors were told that they could expect monthly returns ranging from 5% to 10%, that Dudley had not suffered a trading loss since 1978, and that their investments were protected from potential loss by a "senior life settlement policy." Additionally, even if investors were low on available funds for investment, Dudley coached them on how to extract money from financial institutions through loans on houses or boats. In total, Dudley raised more than $12 million from approximately 100 investors from January 2007 to March 2010.
Not surprisingly, Dudley's promises of steady and significant returns were possible only through perpetrating an elaborate Ponzi scheme that used new investor funds to repay older investors. Instead of using investor funds for the various ventures he pitched, Dudley used investor monies for a variety of personal expenses including more than $2 million for the purchase of two homes, a down payment for a ski boat, and travel expenses. After he was arrested in mid-2011, Dudley initially pleaded not guilty. He later agreed to plead guilty in March 2013 to a single count of wire fraud.
As part of his plea agreement, Dudley has also agreed to pay $6.8 million in restitution.
↧
Utah Burglar Asks Victims for Help
Just when you think crime can’t get any stranger, a new story comes along—this time one in which the burglar asks the homeowners he’s allegedly trying to rob for help. I Hurt Myself A Utah man was taken to a local Salt Lake hospital in critical condition after he was found sitting on the floor […]
↧
Flint Man Sentenced to Up to 20 Years for His Role in Two Meth-Related Explosions
Keith William Boyce Jr., a 38-year-old Flint resident, was sentenced on Monday November 18 to 3 to 20 years in prison for his role in two methamphetamine lab explosions according to recent news articles. Boyce pleaded guilty to charges related to an April 16 incident on the city's north side; he was also allegedly involved in a meth lab explosion which occurred in July on the city's east side in the 3000 block of Woodrow Avenue.
In the April blast, neighbors reported the explosion sounding like a bomb exploded. This incident took place at the Rollingwood Manor apartment complex; the force of the explosion blew a hole in an outside wall of the complex, according to authorities. Prior to being sentenced by Genesee Circuit Judge Archie Hayman, Boyce said that leaving the military was the worst decision of his life.
Inside the apartment where the explosion originated, authorities located meth components including two one-pot meth labs made with soda bottles which were 16 and 20 ounce bottles. They believe one of these bottles caused the explosion. The defendant told police that he believed reusing one of the bottles too many times led to the explosion. Boyce apologized to residents of the apartment complex, saying that "People's lives were at risk."
In the July meth lab explosion, a bedroom sustained damage when a wall and window were blown out. Authorities found chemicals and 2-liter bottles filled with lye in a shed, along with jumper cables which were connected to electrical wires inside the home. There was no power in the home according to news reports.
Michigan drug crime lawyers know that a conviction for manufacturing, creating, or delivering methamphetamine or other Schedule 1 or 2 drugs will result in severe criminal penalties. These penalties may include thousands of dollars in fines along with substantial prison time, possibly even life in prison depending on the details of your specific case.
↧
↧
Kalamazoo Man Charged with Assault with Intent to Commit Murder After Leaving Alleged Beating Victim Under Dumpster
On Friday November 8, 25-year-old Drew Stafford Thorngate was arraigned on one charge of assault with intent to murder in the alleged beating of a man who Thorngate argued with over missed massage appointments, according to a news article at Mlive.com. Thorngate was arraigned in Kalamazoo County District Court after officers found a man in a parking lot with life-threatening injuries on Tuesday.
The name of the alleged victim has not been released; he is being identified only as F.V-P by Kalamazoo Public Safety Detective Brian Beauchamp. The victim allegedly contacted Thorngate on November 5 to request a massage. Apparently the victim had requested an appointment for a massage on more than one occasion, and had stood Thorngate up.
Thorngate admitted that he met up with the victim on November 5, and that an argument ensued. The two men met in the 500 block of South Rose Street, according to what the defendant told Beauchamp, who testified that Thorngate struck the victim in the back of the head with a baseball bat, then placed him under a dumpster after dragging him through the parking lot.
The victim was hospitalized at Bronson Methodist Hospital where he was in the critical care unit, said to have been intubated by doctors. Beauchamp testified that phone records were used by detectives to identify Thorngate as a suspect in the assault.
As of last news reports, Thorngate remained held in the Kalamazoo County Jail; no details were released regarding the next court date.
Assault with intent to commit murder is a very serious criminal offense, one that could potentially leave the accused facing a lifetime or any number of years behind bars if convicted. Without effective legal guidance and support, the consequences will be life-changing; often times, those convicted face ruin of their reputations and careers, even family relationships.
↧
Who do you recomend as a Prescription Drug Expert in my DUI Defense?
I have had very good success with Dr. Robert Julien from Lake Oswego, Oregon. Every DUI case that he assisted with over the years was either reduced from DUI or dismissed. I have included the link to his site. Dr....
↧
Traffic stop leads to drug arrest near Mountain Home
IDAHO STATE POLICE NEWS RELEASE - generated by our News Release ListServer DO NOT REPLY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IDAHO STATE POLICE NEWS RELEASE District 3 Patrol 700 S. Stratford Dr., Meridian 83642 (208) 846-7550 Fax (208) 846-7520 For Immediate Release: 11/18/13 7:00 p.m. Please direct questions to the District Office On November 18, 2013, at 3:05 a.m., the Idaho State Police conducted a traffic stop on a 2011 Infinity G37, on Interstate 84 at milepost 84, near Mountain Home. The vehicle was traveling westbound, and was stopped for a traffic violation. The driver was identified as Robert Knowles, 47, of Bonney Lake, Washington. Sarah Miller, 21, also of Bonney Lake, was a passenger in the vehicle. The Idaho State Police was assisted by the Mountain Home Police Department and the Elmore County Sheriff's Office, which utilized a drug detection canine. Approximately 4.5 ounces of cocaine, over 1.5 ounces of methamphetamine, small quantities of heroin and marijuana, and approximately $9,400.00, were found and seized. Both individuals were incarcerated in the Elmore County jail on multiple charges, including drug trafficking. The car was impounded and subject to seizure by the Idaho State Police. -------------
↧
OK - Sex offender takes action against deputy who wrongfully arrested him
Original Article
11/18/2013
By Rebecca Schleicher
A man from Hulbert convicted of rape 19 years ago spent nearly two decades on the sex offender registry.
This summer a state Supreme Court ruling got _____ off the list, but now he says he's being harassed by at least one investigator who is disregarding the law.
When _____ was 19 he dated a girl four years younger.
"We had just went out once or twice and wound up sleeping together and that was you know that was basically it," he...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit our blog for full links, videos, studies and more! ]]
↧
↧
NJ - Update to N.J. sex offender registry law advanced by Assembly panel
Original Article
11/18/2013
By Christopher Baxter
TRENTON - A state Assembly panel today advanced a bill that would require sex offenders to pay part of their monitoring costs under Megan’s Law and toughen penalties for those who violate its provisions.
The bill (A3886), which was approved 10-0 by the lower house's Law and Public Safety Committee, would charge newly convicted sex offenders a $30 monthly fee that would go into a state fund to pay for supervision. The money would also help...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit our blog for full links, videos, studies and more! ]]
↧
Burbank Sex Crime Blotter: Woman Accused of Snapping Pictures of Other Women in the Bathroom
Not all Burbank sex crime cases sound like something out of Orange Is the New Black, the hit TV show about a yuppie woman forced to serve time behind bars for a crime she committed years ago.
But a recent case out of Phoenix sounds like it was ripped from an Orange Is the New Black B story.
Phoenix police booked 37-year-old Linda Laibe for photographing and videotaping women in public bathrooms throughout the Phoenix Valley. According to Trent Crump, a local police sergeant, Laibe did her photo and video shoots at restrooms “throughout the valley” in places like Walmart, Chase Field, University of Phoenix Stadium, and the Rainforest Café. The woman then put photos and videos up on the internet and sold them. She faces 38 counts of voyeurism, although authorities are still piecing together exactly how she did what she did and how many women were victimized.
Potential Lessons for Your Burbank Sex Crime Case?
One of the scary aspects of Laibe’s case – from a defendant’s point of view – is that she faces 38 separate counts of voyeurism. Even a single count can lead to major trouble, like jail time, restraining orders, probation, and the like. But in the Southern California legal system, the penalties from various counts can “stack on top of each other” and lead to huge sentences.
For instance, if convicted of a single count of Burbank lewd conduct, your penalty might be a month or two behind bars, depending on factors, such as the nature of the crime and your criminal history. But if you're convicted of TEN of those charges stacked on top of one another… you could face well over a year behind bars.
Whether you got caught making a single bad mistake – or you systematically violated Burbank sex crime laws – you need to understand your defense options, so you can make rational, sensible decisions. Unfortunately, the law can be quite complicated and confusing. Unprepared defendants can easily say or do things that can complicate their cases and land them in even deeper legal hot water.
Fortunately, you can turn to a trusted Burbank sex crime defense lawyer with the Kraut Law Group for insightful, thorough help.
Just because you made a mistake – or even a series of mistakes – does not mean that you should suffer needlessly. Mr. Kraut is a former prosecutor. He spent 14-years putting defendants like Burbank sex crime offenders behind bars before switching over to represent criminal defendants. He provides regular commentary on Burbank criminal defense for many esteemed publications, like the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and LA Weekly.
↧
Is Texting While Driving Reckless Driving Per Se?
No, texting while driving is not reckless driving per se. I have written previously about the change in Virginia’s texting while driving law, which was made a primary offense this year. In June of 2013, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli wrote an opinion, explaining that texting while driving (Va Code § 46.2-1078.1) and reckless driving (Va Code § 46.2-852) […]The post Is Texting While Driving Reckless Driving Per Se? appeared first on Reckless Driving and Traffic Defense Attorney.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
