Understanding the complexities of the myriad Federal Sentencing Guidelines as they relate to federal drug crimes is critical to effective legal representation. The Guidelines and their corresponding federal drug statutes continue to evolve, thus necessitating a keen understanding on how applied to your federal drug case, including federal conspiracy charges for all types of drugs- […]
The Federal Lawyer- Drug Conspiracy and the Interplay with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines
↧
↧
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS HOLDS TRIAL WAS PERMISSIBLE WITHOUT LANGUAGE TRANSLATION
In a case decided this week, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Austin held that a native Spanish speaker who did not understand English could not have another trial, because the trial court "affirmatively reflected" that the defendant waived his right to understand the proceedings. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the trial court did not have to formally question the defendant about whether the defendant wanted to give up his right to have a translator. The bilingual defense lawyer thought it would be distracting to the jury, and the lawyer thought it might affect his own concentration. The defendant agreed with his lawyer about that approach. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the record showed that the defendant did not want a translator, even though he said he did not know about that right, and even though the trial judge never asked him if he understood the right or wanted to give it up.
↧
CORTE DE APELACIONES CRIMINALES DICE QUE JUICIO FUE PERMITIDO SIN TRADUCCIÓN DE IDIOMAS
En un caso decidido esta semana, la Corte de Apelaciones Penal de Texas en Austin sostenido que un hablante nativo de español, que no entendía Inglés no podía tener otro juicio, debido a que el tribunal de primera instancia "afirmativamente refleja" que el acusado renunció a su derecho a entender el proceso . El Tribunal de Apelaciones en lo Penal declaró que el tribunal de primera instancia no tuvo que cuestionar formalmente al acusado acerca de si el acusado quería renunciar a su derecho a tener un intérprete. El abogado defensor bilingüe pensó que sería una distracción para el jurado, y el abogado pensó que podría afectar su concentración. El acusado estuvo de acuerdo con su abogado acerca de ese enfoque. El Tribunal de Apelaciones declaró que el expediente demostraba que el acusado no quería un traductor, a pesar de que él dijo que él no sabía nada de ese derecho, y a pesar de que el juez de la causa nunca se le preguntó si entendía la derecha o quería darle arriba.
↧
What’s The Difference Between Sexual Assault And Rape?
Modern statutes tend to define a spectrum of prohibited, non-consensual sexual acts under the umbrella of “sexual assault” and “sexual abuse.” These run the gamut from unwanted touching, to child molestation, to attempted rape and rape. “Rape” is a crime that has been in the legal lexicon for a very long time, and as a […]The post What’s The Difference Between Sexual Assault And Rape? appeared first on New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney - Matthew Reisig.
↧
Should I Agree To A Conditional Discharge In My Marijuana Case?
In certain circumstances, New Jersey allows some persons charged in disorderly persons offenses (usually drug possession) to undergo a diversionary program instead of standing trial. You are only eligible for Conditional Discharge if you haven’t been convicted of drug offenses in the past, and you have not previously used the CD system or other pre-trial […]The post Should I Agree To A Conditional Discharge In My Marijuana Case? appeared first on New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney - Matthew Reisig.
↧
↧
Is Marijuana Possession A Felony In New Jersey?
New Jersey classifies marijuana as a “controlled dangerous substance,” and possession of marijuana does have legal consequences. If you’ve been caught in possession of less than 50 grams of marijuana, you’ll be charged with a “disorderly persons offense,” with a penalty of up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $1000. […]The post Is Marijuana Possession A Felony In New Jersey? appeared first on New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney - Matthew Reisig.
↧
Robinson on Murder Mitigation and Doctrinal Interrelation Analysis
Paul H. Robinson (University of Pennsylvania Law School) has posted Murder Mitigation in the Fifty-Two American Jurisdictions: A Case Study in Doctrinal Interrelation Analysis on SSRN. Here is the abstract: The essay surveys the law in the fifty-two American jurisdictions...
↧
The Feds Go Stark Raving Mad
A couple of days ago, I said that race mongering had gone stark raving mad, by comparing Martin Luther King unfavorably to sneering cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.Tonight I have to say that the federal government, my former employer, has likewise gone...
↧
Hard-Hitting Journalism from "Morning Joe"
Author William D. Cohan has argued that despite the findings of the AG’s report and the massive amounts of exculpatory evidence, “something happened” in the bathroom; and despite Mike Nifong’s myriad ethical misdeeds, he was unfairly targeted by the Bar and the North Carolina justice system. Given the aggressively revisionist nature of Cohan’s thesis (and the paucity of new information that he uncovered in researching his book), it might be assumed that members of the media would express at least some skepticism about the book’s claims.Such an assumption would be wrong.Cohan’s highest-profile appearance was on “Morning Joe.” Here’s a transcript of the . . . hard-hitting . . . questions and commentary that came from co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, and MSNBC news-reader Thomas Roberts. (I have already discussed Cohan’s troubling assertions on the program.)Below: the audio and transcript of the co-hosts.Your browser does not support this audio Joe: This was an absolute mess—chaos—when it came out. And now looking back, it looks like it’s even more of a mess. You look at the main players: the accuser, in jail for murder; the DA, bankrupt, disbarred, jailed for a night; the Duke lacrosse players end up getting $20 million [sic]. This party, you say, cost Duke University [sic: the “party” cost Duke nothing—Duke’s misconduct did] $100 million [almost certainly wrong, unless Duke spent more than $75 million in legal fees].Mika: Oh!!Joe: Talk about it...Joe: Why did they [Duke] do it [settle]?...Mika: Mmm…Joe: Right...Joe: No good guys here, you say? The Duke lacrosse players who were framed—certainly sounded framed, in the media—you say they weren’t white knights or angels either, and there’s a cautionary tale here, with an e-mail...Joe: What’s the verdict [of Cohan’s self-description of his book as the “trial that never happened”]?...Mika: Wow!...Mika: Don’t give the ending [of the book]!...Thomas Roberts: So, Nifong, who you find to be credible; the rest [he appears to be referring to Mangum and Steel here] not so much honest brokers. What are the other details that really surprised and shocked you?...Roberts: Correct...Mika: Right...Mika: You call it the trial that never happened. It looks absolutely fascinating. [Is she admitting that she didn’t read the book before the segment?]Joe: You’re not going to be giving any commencement speeches at Duke anytime soon?Mika: There you go...Mika: Good for you!Joe: Williams! [Cohan said his kids went there.] Go Ephs!To reiterate: in the entire appearance, Cohan was asked five questions, none of which dealt with his opinions on Nifong or what grounds the author had for his remarkable decision to set aside the findings of the AG’s report and the students’ exculpatory evidence. Instead, the “Morning Joe” team asked:No good guys here, you say?Why did they [Duke] do it [settle]?What’s the verdict [of his book, as the alleged trial]?What are the other details that really surprised and shocked you?You’re not going to be giving any commencement speeches at Duke anytime soon?You can see the full video of this episode in journalism here.
↧
↧
OR: No RS for frisk; defendant made no furtive movements and asked why the need for a search
The officer lacked reasonable suspicion that defendant was armed to justify a frisk. Defendant, inter alia, made no furtive movements, and asked why the officers had to search him and his demeanor changed when it came up. Nothing here indicates risk of a weapon. Reversed. State v. Rodriguez-Perez, 2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 433 (April 9, 2014)*:
=> Read more!
↧
Selbstleseverfahren, Band 52
Original: Selbstleseverfahren, Band 52
↧
Getting Along With Your Ex
In his on-going deconstruction of D. C. Magistrate Judge John Facciola’s order denying the government’s warrant to search all the emails of its target, Orin Kerr at WaPo Conspiracy takes the court’s Second Memorandum Opinion to task. The government lost again, for having done nothing more than switching some language from Exhibit A to B, […]
↧
Legal Advice, At $2 Per Minute
Victor Medina sent me an email from his Apple iToy questioning whether anyone would have the nerve to solicit a sex worker at the wage being offered for a lawyer “position” on Craig’s list: Seeking Attorneys for online legal services (pay – $2 per minute) So I pulled out my handy-dandy calculator and ran the numbers. […]
↧
↧
Illinois May Decriminalize Possession of Small Amounts of Marijuana
The Illinois legislature is considering enacting new laws that would decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. The proposed bills fall short of legalizing pot, as Colorado and Washington do, but would instead align Illinois with 16 other states that no longer incarcerate individuals caught with small amounts intended for personal use. The bills are […]
↧
Can I Expunge My Felony Charge in Rhode Island?
A question that is frequently asked by potential clients is whether they can expunge a prior felony offense. While the question may seem straightforward, such a determination can be difficult. First, your felony charge must be adjudicated. Pending criminal charges, whether they be felony or misdemeanor, cannot be expunged. For a free, confidential evaluation of your Rhode Island Criminal Record please call RI Expungement Attorney Matthew Marin at 401-228-8271 or email us at mm@matthewtmarin.com.As a general statement, felony criminal charges that have been completely dismissed (sometimes referred to as "No Information" or "No Information Signed" or "No Information Filed") can be expunged from your criminal record immediately upon their dismissal. However, if you have been "convicted" of another felony offense you cannot have any records expunged, including a dismissed felony offense. If you have had a felony charge dismissed, it is definitely in your best interests to speak with a skilled Rhode Island Expungement Lawyer. At the Law Offices of Matthew T. Marin, Esquire, Inc., we can give you a quick, no-nonsense evaluation regarding your eligibility to have your dismissed felony charge expunged.If your felony charge was resolved via a negotiated plea or a trial and you were sentenced, the general rule is that you must wait 10 years from the date that your sentence was completed. So, if you were sentenced to five years of probation you would need to wait an additional 10 years after your probation ended prior to being eligible to have the case expunged. But, in the case of a felony upon which you received a sentence, you will not be eligible to have the case expunged if you have any other criminal convictions, misdemeanor or felony. This can become a complex analysis and it is always in your best interest to seek an evaluation from an experienced RI Expungement Lawyer.Our offices are conveniently located in downtown Providence and downtown Newport. Contact our expungement lawyers 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. We can provide you with a no-nonsense, free and confidential consultation regarding your eligibility to have your records expunged or sealed. For more information on Rhode Island Expungement Laws, please visit the links below:Rhode Island Expungement Lawyer - visit websiteRhode Island DUI Expungement - visit websiteRhode Island Felony Expungement Laws - visit website RHODE ISLAND EXPUNGEMENT ATTORNEY MATTHEW MARINPHONE: 401-228-8271 CONNECT WITH US ON:
↧
What does it mean to the defense in the Aaron Hernandez case that Ortiz and Wallace have been indicted for Murder?
This week featured a new development in the Aaron Hernandez case with Carlos Ortiz and Ernest Wallace being indicted on murder charges. Does this help the Hernandez defense team? From the start, Hernandez primary defense was likely to be that...
↧
Case o' The Week: Easy Sell for Involuntary Meds - Gillenwater, Sell, and Restoration of Competency
What stands between a government shrink with a needle, and our incompetent clients? Less, now. United States v. Gillenwater, 2014 WL 1394960 (9thCir. Apr. 11, 2014), decision available here.Players: Decision by Justice O’Connor, joined by Judges Tallman and Bea. Facts: Gillenwater felt he had been exposed to asbestos while renovating the Las Vegas Flamingo Hotel. Id. at 1. Convinced the government was helping to cover up this exposure, he wrote a series of threatening emails to government employees. Id. When agents showed up at his house to tell him to knock it off, he met them with gun in hand – but put it away, talked to the agents, and acknowledged that he shouldn’t sent these emails. Id. Two days later, he allegedly started sending them again. Id. When he was arrested, the feds found guns and ammo, and while in custody, Gillenwater allegedly sent a threatening postcard to an OSHA employee. Id. at 2. The district court ordered a competency evaluation, Gillenwater was found incompetent, and the government psychiatrist recommended medication (that Gillenwater refused). Id. The government moved for involuntary medication under Sell, and after a number of hearings with conflicting psych testimony, the district court agreed. Id. at *3. After appeals and remands, the case ended up back before the Ninth on the involuntary medication issue. Id. Issue(s): “Gillenwater contends that the government did not meet its burden on all four Sell factors and that the district court’s order authorizing his involuntary medication must therefore be reversed.” Id. at *4.Held: “While recognizing the important interests at stake for both the government and Gillenwater, we conclude that the district court did not err in authorizing Gillenwater’s involuntary medication.” Id.at *1. Of Note: Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003) is the seminal Justice Breyer decision on the rights of defendants facing involuntary medication to restore competency. Justice O’Connor’s decision in Gillenwaterarguably waters down the Sell factors. Of most concern, the decision distinguishes authority on the first Sell factor: “the important government interests factor.” Here, Gillenwater was only looking at a guideline range of 33-41 months, had already served 32months, and his mental disorder clearly drove the conduct. Gillenwater, 2014 WL 1394960 at 4-5. In previous cases, each of those facts would have cut against involuntary medication. Here, Justice O’Connor finds an “important government interest” nonetheless. It’s a discouraging opinion for those representing vulnerable folks facing restraining straps and a needle full of haloperidol in the hands of a government shrink. How to Use: Comparatively low sentencing range, most of the sentence already served, mental illness as a mitigating factors – these are facts that traditionally undercut involuntary medication. How does one distinguish Gillenwater when fighting involuntary medication? Well, there were some admittedly bad facts here: guns throughout the investigation, threats to choke, rape, and kill government employees, and a jailhouse threat postcard (why is there always the jailhouse letter, in a threats case?) Id. at 2-5. On less – "threatening" – facts, there may be some life left in the first Sell “important interest” factor. For Further Reading: The Sentencing Commission voted to reduce the drug guidelines by 2 offense levels! See USSG Press Release here. Not effective until Nov. 1, 2014, but DOJ instructed USAOs not to object to variances for current cases, in anticipation of that amendment! See DOJ Press Release here. What’s the next step towards just sentencing for our drug clients? Retroactivity. The comment period for the Commission is fast approaching for this critical issue – an important time to speak out for our clients. See Sentencing Commission Comments description here. Image of injection from http://www.mhra.gov.uk/ConferencesLearningCentre/LearningCentre/Medicineslearningmodules/Reducingmedicinerisk/Antipsychoticslearningmodule/CON155606?useSecondary=&showpage=35Steven Kalar, Federal Public Defender N.D Cal. Website at www.ndcalfpd.org
↧
↧
Another notable (and astute?) local shaming sentence for elderly bully
As reported in this AP piece, "Ohio Judge Sentences Man To Wear 'I AM A BULLY' Sign," another notable sentence involving shaming has made national news this weekend. Here are the details: A man accused of harassing a neighbor and...
↧
A Really Thorough Search for Easter Eggs
↧
Sunday Open Thread
It's a rainy Sunday here, about to turn to 4 to 7 inches of snow. Sorry for the lack of posting, I've been busy trying to assemble a few pieces of outdoor furniture for my balcony, listening to Spanish tapes and composing a "comment" for the...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
