IDAHO STATE POLICE NEWS RELEASE - generated by our News Release ListServer
DO NOT REPLY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho State Police
District 6 1540 Foote Dr.
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402-1828
(208) 525-7377 FAX: (208) 525-7294
For Immediate Release: 03/09/2013 3:45 pm
Please direct questions to the District Office
On March 9, 2013 at approximately 207 am, the Idaho State Police conducted a traffic stop on U.S. 20 at milepost 311 near Idaho Falls on a U-Haul truck that was failing to maintain its lane of travel. The driver was identified as Sergio Javier Varela-Vallecillo (29 YOA) by his Honduras passport and the passenger was identified as Felicia Inez Varela (28 YOA) by her Texas driver's license. During the traffic stop, there were discrepancies with the rental agreement and both occupants denied ownership of most of the property in the U-Haul.
A Bonneville County K-9 was dispatched to the traffic stop. The K-9 alerted on the U-Haul and during the search approximately 52 pounds of Methamphetamine and 27 pounds of Cocaine were located. Varela, and Varela-Vallecillo were both arrested and transported to the Bonneville County Jail. The jail staff alerted the Idaho State Police that Felicia Inez Varela had an additional 5 grams of Methamphetamine concealed on her person. Varela, and Varela-Vallecillo were both charged with Felony trafficking of Methamphetamine, and Cocaine. Felicia Inez Varela was also charged with Felony Introducing Methamphetamine into a correctional facility, and Varela-Vallecillo was charged with failure to purchase a drivers license.
The Idaho State Police was assisted on scene by the Bonneville County Sheriff and Idaho State Police detectives.
The estimated street value of the Methamphetamine and Cocaine is approximately $1,000,000 to $1,200,000.
*** On March 11th (Monday), there will be a Press Conference held at 10:30am at the District 6 Office of the Idaho State Police located at 1540 Foote Dr., in Idaho Falls. During this time the media will be able to photograph the drugs and questions will be answered about the traffic stop and investigation.
-------------
Idaho State Police traffic stop leads to large drug seizure
↧
↧
Woman is continuously found to be driven while under the influence of alcohol
This case is regarding a defendant who was questioned by officers because she has been repeatedly found to be under the influence of liquor. The defendant was charged with a twin criminal charge of having more than the prescribed alcohol level in her system and driving under the influence of alcohol. The court found out with sufficient evidence that she is drunk but still drove her motor vehicle. The plaintiffs request a hearing but the court refuses and decides to take a motion on the papers promptly.
During the next time that the defendant was caught, she was then pronounced drunk driving again by the patrols base on the breath sample that she gave. However, the defendant challenged the constitutionality of the checkpoint established by the authorities. She then allowed the patrols to evaluate the kind of checkpoint they are operating and questioned the duty of the patrol to disturb every citizen who passes by that street. The petitioner alleges that the patrols didn’t realize that the people are suffering from legal stigma for the unwarranted police procedures conducted by the authorities.
The Court has taken into consideration the stringent protocol of setting up a checkpoint wherein a memorandum or a plan of the checkpoint to be established is sent to the Assistant Deputy Superintendent. The memorandum must contain the following: time and location of the planned checkpoint, enforcement of personnel and system of stop.
Also, the protocol includes the strict implementation of the DWI program notification and the DWI Program Activity Record. Under said guidelines, it is a must that these reports be completed on time. These records are used by the authorities to commence both criminal and civil proceedings.
Under this instant case, none of the documents were complied with by the police. There was also no document transmitted to the appropriate official or division of the New York State Police Department. Thus, having missed to abide by their own protocols, the state must suffer the consequences.
Under the New York Constitution, a check-point stop is considered as a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The general rule states that there could only be a valid seizure of an automobile if there was an individualized suspicion of a wrongdoing. Generally, a sobriety checkpoint does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
However, a vehicle checkpoint, wherein the primary purpose was indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control was long declared as unconstitutional. This also includes a drug interdiction checkpoint.
The Court also discussed that the primary programmatic purpose of setting up the check point must be determined by examining the reasons for undertaking the same as opposed to the particular manner in which the checkpoint was conducted. The government also has the burden of complying with the following requisites: (1) a checkpoint must be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers” and (2) the discretion of the official in the field be circumscribed.
Also, the people has the burden of proving at a suppression hearing that the particular checkpoint was conducted in a non-discretionary manner wherein the officers did not exercise individual discretion on where to stop the cars or what questions to ask; (3) there should also be a set of adequate precautions as to safety, lighting, and fair warning of the existence of the checkpoint; (4) the location of the extablished checkpoint must be chosen by officers responsible for making the decisions as to the effective allocation of limited enforcement resources.
If the above-enumerated requirements were satisfactorily met by the police officers, the same could substitute for the constitutional norm of individualized suspicion.
Thus, having examined the facts of this instant case, the court is of the view that the checkpoint subject matter of this proceeding was unconstitutional and represented an unlawful search and seizure. Thus, the defendant’s motion to suppress the results of any chemical analysis of her breath and all evidence gathered from her.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Officials seek law change to segregate sex offenders
3-9-2013 Maine:
AUGUSTA — Three Augusta city councilors and Rep. Matt Pouliot tried to convince a legislative committee Friday to modify a state law so the city can prohibit sex offenders from...
[[This,an article summary.Please visit my website for complete article, and more.]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Saturday Night Open Thread
It seems a little early for Daylight Savings Time, but it's here. Don't forget to turn your clocks ahead (spring forward, fall back.)
This is an open thread, all topics welcome.
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
GA - Local law enforcement raises awareness of sex offenders
Rebecca CranfordOriginal ArticleMs. Cranford clearly knows nothing about the laws she is paid to enforce. Not all ex-sex offenders have to stay 1,000 feet away from places, some can live anywhere they wish, and people can petition to get off the list, which she said in the other article below, that you cannot. Don't believe this lady, investigate the laws for yourself, which you can find in 42-1-12 - 42-1-19 in the Georgia code. How can you "educate" people when you don't even know the laws?03/09/2013By Courtney HighfieldALBANY - City Commissioner Ivey Hines held a town meeting Saturday morning and asked Lt. Rebecca Cranford with the Dougherty County Sheriff's Department to come speak about an issue he feels needs attention.
Lt. Cranford spoke to the public today about laws regarding sex offenders. Cranford says there are a lot of misconceptions. One of those misconceptions deals with proximity for sex offenders. Cranford says the law requires sex offenders to not reside within 1,000 feet of a school or children's area.- Not exactly true. Not all ex-offenders have this limitation. Some can live anywhere they wish and go anywhere they wish.
For sex offenders, their restrictions are not all the same either. Each individual holds a different set of restrictions based on the offenders registered date of offense.- Exactly! But this article and the one linked below, is full of discrepancies.
Cranford said there are 321 registered sex offenders in the area and while that seems like a large number, she said its not something to be alarmed about. She stressed to the public just how closely the police department monitors these offenders.See Also:Dougherty Co. introduces new sex offender management program
© 2006-2013 | Sex Offender Issues
↧
↧
Witmer-Rich on Sneak and Peak Searches
Jonathan Witmer-Rich (Cleveland State University - Cleveland-Marshall College of Law) has posted The Rapid Rise of 'Sneak and Peak' Searches, and the Fourth Amendment 'Rule Requiring Notice' on SSRN. Here is the abstract: This article documents the rapid rise of...
↧
OH8: Hiding a backpack in a store storage room when trying to elude police is abandonment
Defendant entered a convenience store when he saw the police, left his backpack in the storage room, and then left the store. That was an abandonment. State v. Milan-Wade, 2013 Ohio 817, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 720 (8th Dist. March 7, 2013).*
Defendant’s patdown was justified because, once stopped, the officer recognized him as somebody involved with narcotics and all the factors of the stop coalesced into reasonable suspicion. State v. Montague, 2013 Ohio 811, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 705 (2d Dist. March 8, 2013).*
The record supported the trial court’s conclusion defendant consented to the blood draw in this OVI case. State v. Sheppeard, 2013 Ohio 812, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 713 (2d Dist. March 8, 2013).*
A report of two men in a particular car dealing drugs in a high crime area that was corroborated before the stop, plus their suspicious actions, justified a frisk. State v. Taylor, 2013 Ohio 814, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 709 (2d Dist. March 8, 2013).*
↧
Dougherty Co introduces new sex offender management program
Its time for a reality check: "The registry Protects NO ONE!" It is equivalent to a deck of index cards of names and pics of people, made available online. It tells folks where these people can be...
[[This,an article summary.Please visit my website for complete article, and more.]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
What evidence does a Boston criminal lawyer look for in contesting a drug distribution charge
A common question that frequently arises for a Boston criminal defense lawyer is: does a defendant have to be present at the scene of the drug transaction to be convicted of drug distribution? A Massachusetts court of appeals decision recently...
↧
↧
Reporters explore likely actual-innocence cases
This week saw a pair of stories by two of the state's top reporters on criminal-justice and innocence issues - Pam Colloff at Texas Monthly and Brandi Grissom at the Texas Tribune - about two possible actual innocence cases:Texas Monthly: Reasonable Doubt: The Manuel Velez CaseTexas Tribune: Years after innocence finding, inmate remains in prisonThe Velez case described by Colloff hinges on flawed forensics related to "shaken baby syndrome" and woefully ineffective assistance of counsel. A habeas writ on the capital case has been heard by the district court and findings must be submitted to the Court of Criminal Appeals this week.Ben Spencer's case, as described by Grissom, involved a murder conviction 26 years ago in Dallas based on a jailhouse snitch and impossible eyewitness IDs made from 100 feet away in the dark. Though a district judge recommended habeas relief, the CCA denied it which leaves a commutation by Governor Rick Perry as the only possible avenue for redress unless new evidence is discovered.
↧
Be Alert When Driving The First Day After The “Spring Forward” Daylight Savings Change
Be careful driving the first daylight savings commute. Traffic accidents tend to spike on this day due to drowsy motorists and dark morning driving conditions. Studies have found an 8 to 17% spike in accidents on the Monday following the … Continue reading →The post Be Alert When Driving The First Day After The “Spring Forward” Daylight Savings Change appeared first on Confessions Of A Traffic Lawyer.
↧
Grits: Bypassing the telecoms: 'Stingrays' allow direct government phone surveillance with little oversight
Grits for Breakfast: "Bypassing the telecoms: 'Stingrays' allow direct government phone surveillance with little oversight" (link below):
[...] Read more!
↧
County Assessor John Noguez Bails Out...Finally
County Assessor John Noguez Bails Out...Finally
The Los Angeles County Tax Assessor who was arrested months ago on charges of corruption and fraud was finally able to postbail with the help of friends, a competent bail bondsman and a a great deal of patience. John Noguez was in custody after a judge set bail at over 1million dollars. This means that Noguez would need to put up one million dollars to secure his release or he could pay a bail bondsman a fee of ten percent and the bondsman would post the million dollar bond to secure Noguez' release.
Not so fast said a Los Angeles Superior Court judge. There is a Penal Code Section 1275 hold on the bail. Under California law, a District Attorney can request or a judge can declare that the defendant in a criminal case (usually a drug or
theft case) must prove the legitimate source of the bail money before he will be allowed to post bail. Noguez and his bondsman Morris Demayo of Creative Bail Bonds in Van Nuys, California have been trying to convince the judge and district attorney that the money wasn't funny for months now. At long last they have succeeded and Noguez is out on bail.
According to Creative's owner Nathan Benenfeld, "Morris and I worked very hard to get this bond posted". Having appeared in court on multiple occasions Benenefeld and Demayo were relieved to finally have the bond posted and get paid for all of their hard work. Now they just have to make sure Noguez makes all of his court appearances or they are on the hook for over one million dollars. Please don't skip town John.
If you have questions about 1275 holds or any other criminal case, call me: Jeffrey Vallens
(818) 783-5700 or email me at: vallenslaw@yahoo.com or visit my sites for more information:
www.4criminaldefense.com or
www.westlakecriminaldefense.com
↧
↧
What Happens if the Police Arrive at Your Friend's Home Just as You are Leaving?
In the recent United States Supreme Court case of Chunon Bailey versus the United States, the facts were as follows:
While police were preparing to execute a warrant to search a basement apartment for a handgun, detectives sitting inside an unmarked car outside the apartment saw two men—later identified as Chunon Bailey and Bryant Middleton—leave the gated area above the apartment, get in a car, and drive away. The detectives waited for the men to leave and then followed the car approximately a mile before stopping it. They found keys during a patdown search of Bailey who at first said that he lived in the apartment but later denied it when told about the search. Both men were handcuffed and driven in a patrol car to the apartment where the police had already found a gun and illegal drugs. After arresting the men, police discovered that one of Bailey's keys unlocked the apartment's door.
At trial, the judge denied Bailey's motion to suppress the apartment key and the statements he made to the detectives when stopped, holding that Bailey's detention was legal because:
1. It was incident to the execution of a search warrant; and
2. It was supported by reasonable suspicion.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, finding instead that Bailey's detention by the police was illegal. The Court reasoned that:
1. The law permits police officers executing a search warrant to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted even when there is no particular suspicion that an individual is involved in criminal activity or poses a specific danger to the officers, Such detention is permitted because the character of the additional intrusion caused by detention is slight and because the justifications for detention are substantial. However, in other cases, the detained occupants were found within or immediately outside the residence being searched. Here, however, Bailey left the apartment before the search began and was detained nearly a mile away.
2. There are three important law enforcement interests that justify detaining an occupant who is on the premises during the search warrant's execution.
a. The first such interest, officer safety, requires officers to secure the premises, which may include detaining current occupants so the officers can search without fear that the occupants will become disruptive, dangerous, or otherwise frustrate the search. If an occupant returns home during the search, officers can lessen the risk by taking routine precautions. In this case, however, Bailey posed little risk to the officers at the scene after he left the premises, apparently without knowledge of the search. Had he returned, he could have been apprehended and detained. Were police to have the authority to detain persons away from the premises, the authority to detain incident to the execution of a search warrant would reach beyond the rationale of ensuring the integrity of the search by detaining those who are on the scene. If officers believe that it would be dangerous to detain a departing individual in front of a residence, they are not required to stop him; and if officers have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, they can detain him on that basis alone. The risk that a departing occupant might alert those still inside the residence is also an insufficient safety rationale for expanding the detention authority beyond the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched.
b. The second law enforcement interest is the facilitation of the completion of the search. Unrestrained occupants can hide or destroy evidence, seek to distract the officers, or simply get in the way. But a general interest in avoiding obstruction of a search cannot justify detention beyond the vicinity of the premises. Occupants who are kept from leaving may assist the officers by opening locked doors or containers in order to avoid the use of force that can damage property or delay completion of the search. But this justification must be confined to persons on site as the search warrant is executed and so in a position to observe the progression of the search.
c. The third law enforcement interest is the interest in preventing flight, which also serves to preserve the integrity of the search. If officers are concerned about flight in the event incriminating evidence is found, they might rush the search, causing unnecessary damage or compromising its careful execution. The need to prevent flight, however, if left unchecked, might be used to argue for detention of any regular occupant regardless of his or her location at the time of the search, for example, detaining a suspect 10 miles away, ready to board a plane. Even if the detention of a former occupant away from the premises could facilitate a later arrest if incriminating evidence is discovered, the mere fact that law enforcement may be made more efficient can never by itself justify disregard of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
None of the three law enforcement interests discussed above applies with the same or similar force to the detention of recent occupants beyond the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched. And each interest is also insufficient, on its own, to justify an expansion of the law that allows the detention of a former occupant, wherever he may be found away from the scene of the search.
3. The detention of a current occupant represents only an incremental intrusion on personal liberty when the search of a home has been authorized by a valid warrant, but an arrest of an individual away from his home involves an additional level of intrusiveness. A public detention, even if merely incident to a search, will resemble a full-fledged arrest and can involve the indignity of a compelled transfer back to the premises.
4. Limiting the area within which an occupant poses a real threat to the safe and efficient execution of a search warrant ensures that the scope of the detention incident to a search is confined to its underlying justification. Because Mr. Bailey was detained at a point beyond any reasonable understanding of immediate vicinity, there is no need to further define that term here. Since detention is justified by the interests in executing a safe and efficient search, the decision to detain must be acted upon at the scene of the search and not at a later time in a more remote place.
![]()
↧
Recent St. Louis Crime Wave Targets Old Clunkers
According to a recent article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, a rash of older vehicle car thefts has occurred in the city over the past several months. The reason, surprising as it may be, might be found in a recent change to Missouri law.
The newspaper report traces the recent rise in older model car thefts to a change that took place in Missouri statutes back in August of 2012. The revised law made it easier for car thieves to cell certain cars for scrap. Specifically, the law makes it easier to sell nonfunctioning cars that are 10 years old or older for scrap. The measure, known as House Bill No. 1150, says that those seeking to sell the cars for scrap do not need to have a valid title to do so. Prior to passage of the measure, the only cars that could be sold for scrap in Missouri without proper title were those that were more than 20 years old.
Critics of the measure say that by continually strengthening laws against scraping other metal, especially copper, the newly relaxed car scrap legislation has served as an invitation for petty thieves to focus their energies on old vehicles they can easily flip for several hundred dollars profit. The legislator who pushed the bill through the General Assembly, Representative Kevin Engler, says that the change was never intended to cause a spike in old car thefts. Instead, the measure was meant to allow those living in rural areas to sell their dilapidated cars more easily. The hope was that people could more easily clean up their property and get a little cash in the process.
Police say that while the matter may not seem like such a big deal, after all, who is really concerned about the disappearance of broken down clunkers, the thefts actually spell other trouble for residents of Missouri. For one thing, insurance rates depend, at least in part, on the rate of vehicle theft. There's no distinction between thefts of old cars versus late model vehicles and the recent spike in incidents could result in serious across the board increases.
Another issue, according to law enforcement officials, is that the law does not provide enough support to ensure junkyards are actually checking for the necessary photo ID before buying the car or even ensuring that the vehicle is inoperable. HB 1150 contains no requirement that the scrap dealer perform any sort of certification that the vehicle is nonfunctioning; they simply take the word of the person selling it.
Police in St. Louis County have said that they've seen a 37 percent increase in thefts of older-model vehicles since the new law took effect. The recovery rate for stolen vehicles has now fallen below 50%, representing a drop of more than 10% in less than a year.
If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a Missouri criminal defense lawyer capable of aggressively protecting your interests, contact our St. Louis criminal defense law firm today at (314) 863-0500.
Source: "Car thieves now covet your old junker," by Christine Byers, published at STLToday.com.
See Our Related Blog Posts:Metal Scrap Theft Ring Targeting St. Louis Trash BinsClass Action Suit Filed Against Officer Who Made Fake DUI Arrests
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Faced With Violating Your Probation or Parole Charges
Probation allows the convicted individual to serve a period of time, usually longer than any prison sentence, free from imprisonment but with certain restrictions. Probation can be seen as a test granting conditional freedom instead of a harsher punishment.In some cases, people use the term interchangeably. There are differences between to law terms.Probation is a portion of the sentence or it is the sentence given by the judge. Most often, when a judge gave the person a probation, it could be a part of the number of imprisonment and then followed with a probation period. There are times that a number of probation years will serve as the punishment for a minor crime committed. If a person is under probation, there are weekly or monthly sessions that he needs to attend to with a probation officer. Other conditions can also include curfew or in some cases are not allowed to drive. Should this person commit a crime, he would be put in jail again and or serve more years for the additional crime committed.Parole on the other hand is being given by the parole board to a prisoner. There are times that judge would sentence these people with life-time imprisonment for the crimes committed. And if the inmate has been well behaved inside the prison, he could be given a parole after his case was reviewed by the parole board. This is a somewhat a reward for non-violent inmates to shorten up their years of imprisonment.If a person is on parole, he also has conditions to meet. He needs to attend meetings with the parole officer and should inform the officer should he leave the country. If he violates these conditions or committed crime while on parole, he would be put to jail and serve the remaining years in prison as per the original sentence given.The main difference for parole and probation is the person who grants it. A judge gives probation when reading the sentence while a parole board grants parole after observing that inmates has been non-violent inside the prison.There are many ways in which a person can violate their probation, below are some of the most common examples: Failing to report a change of address or get approval to move from the probation officerFailing to follow the terms of current probationCommitting another crime while still on probationFailing to pass or submit a urinalysisFailing to pass or submit a drug analysisFailing to pay for restitutionFailing to report to the probation officerAlter or break electronic monitoring devicesA probation officer can notify the court if he or she feels a person violated their probation and they can issue a warrant for the person's arrest. It is advised to report any violation of probation to the parole officer. Just because a person was not caught violating their probation does not mean that it cannot catch up to them. It is very common for violations of probation not to be caught by the actual act but because of failing a polygraph test. In these situations the judge could have reviewed and charged the case differently if the person was not trying to hide the circumstance that caused them to be in violation and were upfront when it happened not after hiding it and failing a polygraph test. Does A Violation Require New Charges?Just because they violated their probation does not constitute automatic charges. The judge will evaluate the circumstances and take all factors into account. The judge will determine if the person made every effort to meet the terms of their release. For a violation to count against a person it must be willful. For example if a person loses their job and cannot pay the restitution that month then they will not be charged in violation. If a person is pregnant, goes into labor and ends up in the hospital and therefore is not at home during the required hours they will take that into account. As in many criminal cases, the #1 and critical thing to do is to hire a knowledgeable and competent criminal defense attorney to help defend your rights if you have been accused and are faced with charges because of violating your probation or parole. If your attorney can provide a compelling reason for why you violated your probation they may be able to have the charges reduced and jail time possibly dropped (source).Florida Probation Violation Defense Lawyer The law Office of Andrew D Stine is committed to representing those Probationers who have violated their Probation or are about to be violated by their Probation Officers.First, the Probationer must understand they have due process rights. The Probationer must have notice of the condition for which the violation is alleged. Probationers must not be misled by rules that have ambiguous or subjective meanings, which their Probation Officers may attach to their probation order or requirements.Second, the Probationer must have notice of the violation, and be properly charged with the violation. This means the warrant or affidavit of violation must be specific and all the terms must be clear. Moreover, a trial court cannot find a violation of a Probationer for a term not contained within their probation order or alleged within the warrant or affidavit. In Florida the most common types of Probation Violations are substantive and technical. Substantive violations occur when the Probationer commits a new crime violation. Technical violations occur when the Probationer omits to complete a condition or willfully violates a condition of his probation. Florida law allows a Probationer to receive the maximum penalty, which the Probationer faced when the original criminal charge was filed.Free consultation 24/7: Call West Palm Beach criminal defense lawyer Andrew D. Stine, P.A. at (561) 832-1170. Se habla español.Distributed by Viestly
↧
Why is the Legislature taking up prosecutor accountability? Two theories
Grits had mentioned the other day that, on Tuesday, the Senate Criminal Justice Committee will take up Chairman John Whitmire's SB 825 making sustained grievances related to prosecutorial misconduct public records and extending the statute of limitations for State Bar sanctions when prosecutors hide exculpatory evidence. Lisa Falkenberg at the Houston Chronicle last week ("Prosecutors need to be accountable for their actions," March 6) previewed the "we're the victim" mentality that will surely be on display by prosecutors when that bill comes up, offering the obvious rebuttal:In an ethics training video leaked recently by someone at the Harris County District Attorney's Office, the trainer, Rob Kepple, seems genuinely puzzled at one point by the question of why the topic of prosecutor accountability is such a big deal these days."I got a theory," Kepple, executive director of the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, tells a room full of Harris County prosecutors. "I think it's because we're pretty much done with the DNA exonerations. … We've tested just about everything we can. Now you've got a whole big exoneration machine that doesn't have anyone to chew on anymore."So, he concludes, it only makes sense to go after prosecutors. We - presumably the media, the public, the lawmakers and the Innocence Project - need something else to chew on.I take a different view. I think prosecutor accountability is a big issue because former Williamson County prosecutor Ken Anderson - who sent Michael Morton to prison for a quarter century for a murder he didn't commit - is still sitting on a bench, wearing a judge's robe, hearing cases.It's a big issue because the former district attorney, John Bradley - who fought the DNA testing that finally exonerated Morton - is still giving talks and applying for state jobs. Kepple is still defending him for having done nothing illegal or unethical.It's a big issue because the former Burleson County prosecutor, Charles Sebesta - who sent Anthony Graves to prison for 18 years, 12 on death row, for murders he didn't commit - is still training officers through the Sheriffs' Association of Texas, and taking out full-page newspaper ads maintaining he did nothing wrong.To which theory do you subscribe?Kepple touts a self-serving analysis by TDCAA claiming prosecutorial misconduct is extremely rare, but a Texas Tribune investigation last year into the causes of false convictions among Texas exoneration cases found prosecutor error - most frequently Brady violations (17 out of 21 cases) - played a role in nearly a quarter of them. If Sen. Whitmire's legislation passes, at least the public will have a better idea if the state bar can or will address the matter. That would be a small but important step toward restoring public confidence.
↧
↧
What is the average sentence for armed robbery?
Free legal answers from attorneys - How much time will my cousin get for robbing someone on the street with his gun? Should he get a lawyer or is the court
↧
Mass. sex offender charged in assault on N.H. boy
A Level 3 sex offender from Massachusetts has been arrested after he allegedly sexually assaulted a minor in a New Hampshire Walmart this weekend, Plaistow (NH) police said.
Boston.com reports that Ronald R. Beausoleil of Haverhill was arrested Monday night after Plaistow police patrolling the parking lot outside the store where the reported assault took place Sunday, observed a car matching a description of the suspect's car, Plaistow police said in a statement. After officers discovered Beausoleil in his car, he was identified as the suspect and arrested.
In Massachusetts, Beausoleil has two prior criminal offenses. He was convicted of indecent assault and battery on a child younger than 14 years old in June 1999 and attempted open and gross lewdness in April of 2007, according to the state Sex Offender Registry Board.
The Level 3 status from the board means the individual has been deemed a high risk to reoffend and poses a substantial risk to the public.
Beausoleil pleaded not guilty at an arraignment this morning at Plaistow District Court. The judge set his bail at $25,000.
Plaistow police received a report Sunday that a 9-year-old child was sexually assaulted while in the toy aisle at the Walmart at 58 Plaistow Road. The victim had briefly been separated from a parent when a male stranger approached and touched the victim inappropriately before fleeing the store, police said.
After the assault, the victim reported what happened to a member of store management, police said, and was treated by medical personnel as a precaution, though no physical injury was reported.
Boston.com reported that police released photographs of the suspect taken from store surveillance cameras to the media. The photos included pictures of a Chevrolet pickup truck with Massachusetts registration. That was the truck police spotted in the parking lot Monday night that led to Beausoleil's arrest.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
James Holmes: No Insanity Plea Yet
Defense lawyers for James Holmes in the Aurora theater case refused to enter a plea today, saying they needed more time. The judge denied the request for a continuance and entered a not guilty plea...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
