At a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee today, National Intelligence Director James clapper said cyberthreats are the biggest problem facing the U.S. today. His prepared remarks are here. ...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Intel Chief says Sequestration to Hamper Cyberthreats Fight
↧
↧
THE PREMIERE OHIO D.U.I. DEFENSE LAWYERS' SEMINAR
A Buddhist proverb says, "When the student is ready, the master appears." For three days last week, D.U.I. lawyers from across the state, and across the country, convened in Columbus for 'The Premier Ohio D.U.I. Defense Seminar' sponsored by the Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (OACDL). The students were ready, and the masters appeared.
Continuing education for lawyers is crucial. Law school is not the end of our education; it's only the beginning. The law is constantly changing. Our understanding of science continually develops. There are never-ending improvements of lawyering techniques. There is a lot to learn.
One great way to learn is to find out what other lawyers are doing throughout the state and throughout the nation. One of the best educational sources for D.U.I. lawyers is the National College for DUI Defense (NCDD). NCDD members are required to regularly attend NCDD-approved seminars, and the Ohio DUI Defense Seminar is one of the few seminars in the country that qualifies as an NCDD-approved seminar. This year's seminar featured several outstanding presentations on Thursday and Friday, as well as a "Trial Skills Academy" on Saturday.
On Thursday, Deandra Grant (Texas) gave an outstanding presentation on evidence in blood-test cases. She explained testing methodologies for different types of blood samples (whole, plasma, serum), discussed obtaining all of the evidence necessary to challenge blood tests, and made recommendations on presenting the evidence to the judge/jury. Her presentation was complemented by that of Dr. Jimmie Valentine (Mississippi) regarding gas chromatography in blood and urine testing. On Thursday, I was part of a panel that discussed the developments with the Intoxilyzer 8000 in Ohio O.V.I. cases.
On Friday, Marcos Garza (Tennessee) presented legal challenges to drug recognition evaluations. He discussed the 'expertise' of drug recognition evaluators and the 12 steps they take to give an opinion about the category of drug impairing the subject. His presentation was complemented Dr. Fran Gengo's (New York) review of the science behind the drug recognition evaluation program. On Friday, I presented, with Dayton attorney Larry Denny, on the studies underlying NHTSA's field sobriety tests.
On Saturday, the O.A.C.D.L. held its second annual "Trial Skills Academy". I participated as an instructor, but I think I learned more than I taught, as the Trial Skills Academy featured such talented lawyers as Patrick Barone (Michigan), Jeff Meadows (Ohio), Michele Tjader (Wisconsin), and Harley Wagner (West Virginia).
For three days, Columbus was the center of the D.U.I. universe. In addition to learning formally at the seminar, I had the privilege of learning informally from the speakers after the seminar sessions. There is truth to the Chinese proverb that says, "A single conversation with a wise man is better than ten years of study". Now, it's time incorporate that knowledge in my practice: as Stephen Covey said, "To know and not to do is really not to know".
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Legal Marijuana and Family Law
The abuse of alcohol is often a factor in contested child custody and access hearings. While “social” drinking has never been a concern, where a parent has a history of alcoholism, binge drinking, or drinking and driving, a court will seriously examine whether alcohol abuse is present and take steps to ensure children are protected from its impact. [...]![]()
↧
Changes Proposed to Missouri Criminal Statutes
It's been several decades since the last update was done to Missouri's criminal statutes but it looks like the public won't have to wait much longer for changes to be implemented. A substantial overhaul of the state's existing criminal justice system is planned by legislators who recently floated a new bill before the General Assembly that would make several important changes.
The bill currently before members of the Missouri House was drafted with significant input from a committee that had been formed years ago by the Missouri Bar to study the state's existing laws and recommend much needed changes.
The committee spent four years batting around ideas and coming up with the final draft language that has just been released to legislators and the public alike. The committee spent time combing through the state's statutes, recommending changes and tweaks as the case may be. Changes were proposed to a wide variety of individual offenses, ranging from littering to domestic assaults.
One of the biggest changes contained in the legislation, known as House Bill No. 210, is the addition of a new class of felony. Currently, Missouri Revised Statutes 557.016 lists four classes of felonies in Missouri: A, B, C and D. The new legislation would add a fifth, Class E, to the list. The goal is to close some of the currently large gaps in the existing four categories. A good example of the problem is found in Missouri Revised Statutes 558.011 which says Class C felonies carry a maximum prison term of seven years, while class B felonies come with between five and 15 years behind bars. To help make the transition between these felony gradations less jarring, the bill proposes creating a Class E which would allow for a better distribution of sentencing times.
Class E felonies would require a prison term not to exceed four years. This would mean that Class C would change to a term of between three and ten years while Class D felonies would not exceed seven years in prison. Additionally, misdemeanors would also be given a new category, Class D, for similar gap-closing reasons.
Though there were many changes contained in the new legislation, it did not contain all of the recommendations of the committee formed by the Missouri Bar to study the criminal code. One suggestion that the committee agreed should be included in the legislation, but which was ultimately left out is that those arrested for first time possession of marijuana should only be subject to a fine.
This would change existing state law which allows for the possibility of jail time. The committee hoped that such a change would reduce the heavy burden on state jails by directing such low risk criminals away from the penal system and instead subjecting them only to fines. It would also help alleviate pressure on the overstretched public defender system given that individuals not facing jail time would no longer be entitled to a public defender's help. Sadly, the existing laws will stay in place which means that those arrested for first time marijuana possession in Missouri will be charged with a Class A misdemeanor, a crime which is punishable with up to a year in jail.
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: "Missouri's Criminal Code May Soon See New Class of Felony, Misdemeanor," by Jennifer Davidson, published at KSMU.org.
See Our Related Blog Posts:St. Louis police off to a violent start to the year as use-of-force increasesSt. Louis City Judges Raise Bail in Gun Cases and St. Louis City Homicides Drop
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Local Police in Jacksonville, Florida Area Going After Synthetic Marijuana Cases
As criminal defense lawyers in the Jacksonville, Florida area, we have taken on several new cases involving arrests for synthetic marijuana. These cases typically involve undercover police officers going into convenience stores and similar businesses that sell items they consider synthetic marijuana. The undercover officers will have a conversation with the store clerk about purchasing the substance to smoke it. They opften come back later in uniform and seize all of the alleged synthetic marijuana in the store, arrest the clerk and owner and sometimes seize any store money they can get their hands on.
Synthetic marijuana is not a legal term; it is a term invented by the police to attempt to make this product appear illegal. This alleged synthetic marijuana is typically sold under different names and can be used for different purposes, including smoking.
The government hears stories of some kids having side effects from the substance, and then they want to get involved and make the substance illegal. However, the problem is that something can only be illegal if a proper law has been passed sufficiently informing the public that the substance is illegal. The police cannot arrest someone because he/she is selling something the government thinks is dangerous in some cases. In order for a person to be properly charged with a state crime, the state legislature must pass a law making the possession and sale of the specific substance illegal and specifically identifying exactly what substance is illegal to possess and/or sell.
In the case of synthetic marijuana, many of the sellers are legitimate business owners who are selling the product openly in their stores. They may know that customers are buying the synthetic marijuana and smoking it, but until the state legislature determines that the substance is illegal, it is not clear that they are committing any crime by selling synthetic marijuana. As we have seen, many of these store owners are buying the substance openly from established manufacturers who provide a chemical lab report confirming that the substances being sold are not controlled substances and have not been deemed illegal by the state.
This is a relatively new area of law where the government may be making arrests first and asking questions as to whether the sale or possession of these substances is actually a violation of an established law later. If you have any questions about the possession or sale of synthetic marijuana or a similar substance, feel free to contact us for a free consultation. It is important to know your rights before getting involved with a controversial substance that the government may be trying to control.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
↧
Sunshine Week: In Celebration of Open Government
The following post appears courtesy of Melanie Ann Pustay, Director of the Office of Information Policy at the Department of Justice and Lisa Ellman, Chief Counselor for the Open Government Partnership and Senior Advisor to the Chief Technology Officer at the White House. It originally appeared on The White House blog. As President Barack Obama [...]
↧
Department of Justice Endorses Recommendations for Changing Child Porn Sentencing
I wrote here last week about the exciting new report by the United States Sentencing Commission, calling for substantial changes to the way child pornography crimes are sentenced in this country. The report essentially says that child pornography sentencing doesn’t work well in this country, because the law is written in a way that gives too much weight to some factors and not enough weight to others, resulting in overly harsh sentences for some and too much lenience for others. I strongly agree; in my role as a cyber crime defense lawyer, I’ve seen plenty of sentences that were faithful to the Sentencing Guidelines but nonetheless wrong for the crime and the circumstances. But I was extremely interested to see that the Justice Department—the department for federal prosecutors—agrees to some extent with the recommendations.
The Justice Department sent a letter March 5 to the Sentencing Commission, thanking it for the opportunity to comment and agreeing with several of its recommendations. In particular, it agreed with the Commission’s recommendation that the current Specific Office Characteristics for section 2G2.2 of the Guidelines be changed. Section 2G2.2 describes sentencing recommendations for child pornography offenses other than production—possession, receipt, transmission and distribution. The Guideline divides offenders into possession only; receipt with no intent to distribute; and receipt with intent, or transmission or distribution. It also has six sentence enhancements for things like the ages of the children, the violence in the images, the number of images, whether there was distribution, whether there was a “pattern of activity” involving sexual abuse of minors and whether a computer was used.
The Commission’s report found that four of those six sentence enhancements now apply to a typical non-production child porn offender. That is, courts are routinely adding the sentence enhancements to the crime because they are very common characteristics of the crime. This has helped contribute to much higher sentences for non-production offenders: the average was 50 months in 2004 and 95 months in 2010. It has also contributed to judges’ habit of departing downward from the Guidelines. The Justice Department recommended that new sentence enhancements take into account how the pornography was acquired; how long the offender has been collecting and the care that went into the collection; how the offender escapes detection; and whether the offender participates in an online community. It recommended that the “use of a computer” enhancement be abandoned and that the number of images that qualify for an enhancement be increased to reflect the ease of collecting images online.
I cannot agree strongly enough with those last two recommendations. As I noted last week, the current Guidelines were written before the Internet was in nearly every American home. As a result, people are being sent to prison for longer than their conduct warrants because of the sentence enhancements written for a pre-Internet era, when collecting required much more dedication and risk. I am also cautiously optimistic about the Department’s proposed new sentence enhancements, as long as they are implemented in a way that distinguishes between casual and hard-core child porn users. And an enhancement for previous contact sex offenses might improve matters if it helps clarify what conduct should qualify. I look forward to hearing more in the coming months about whether Congress takes these recommendations to heart.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Charlotte Woman Charged with Misdemeanor Death by Vehicle
A Charlotte woman has been arrested and charged with a misdemeanor death by vehicle after she was invloved in a fatal car accident Sunday morning. Accordingly, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department arrested the woman after she crashed her SUV into a Saturn and the driver subsequently died.
The police have not released what they believe to be the cause of the accident, however, the report does state that the 38 year old Charlotte resident crossed over the center line on Mallard Creek Road near the intersection of Sawgrass Ridge Place and struck a Saturn Ion head-on.
According to a nearby witness, the SUV flew up in ...
↧
After Madoff: Should Charities and Their Officers Become More Wary About Who Signs Their IRS Forms 990? - Installment 88
Michael J. Kline writes:
This blog series has often used Forms 990 and Forms 990-PF filed with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) by public charities and private foundations, respectively, which have been victims in the Ponzi schemes of Bernard L. Madoff (“Madoff”) and others, to highlight areas where improvement in compliance may be undertaken. For example, a previous blog entry pointed out that there is evidence that some charities may be exercising greater caution in their gift acceptance policies as a result of having suffered from involvement with Ponzi schemes.
This posting will address the question of what officer should sign the Form 990 in light of the requirements of the IRS contained in the Form 990 itself and the IRS Instructions for Form 990 (the “IRS Instructions”). The Form 990 Signature Block at the bottom of the first page states the following, which is substantially the same language as is present in income tax returns for individuals and business corporations:
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return, including accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct and complete.
The IRS Instructions add the following further requirements as to the Signature Block:
The return must be signed by the current president, vice president, treasurer, assistant treasurer, chief accounting officer, or other corporate officer (such as tax officer) who is authorized to sign as of the date this return is filed [Emphasis supplied] . . . . The definition of "officer" for purposes of Part II is different from the definition of officer (see Glossary) used to determine which officers to report elsewhere on the form and schedules, and from the definition of principal officer for purposes of the Form 990 Heading (see Glossary).
This is a very serious standard and a high bar for the officer executing the Form 990 to achieve. As early as February 2010, this blog series recognized the diverse and somewhat perplexing nature of the individuals who signed Forms 990 on behalf of two charities that were victims of Madoff: Yeshiva University and Hadassah. In the case of Yeshiva University, its Vice President and CFO, who was a compensated full-time employee, executed the Form 990. On the other hand, the National Treasurer of Hadassah, who sign its Form 990 contemporaneously with the Yeshiva filing, appeared to be an uncompensated volunteer and reflected less than 10 hours per week of time for Hadassah.
Query: should a volunteer officer who devotes relatively little time to the charity be undertaking the responsibility to sign for a charity of the international scope of Hadassah? Would not the CFO or other full-time compensated officer of Hadassah be more appropriate for the task? (While the uncompensated National Treasurer of Hadassah again signed its 2011 Form 990, such Form 990 does indicate that she devotes 34.00 hours per week to Hadassah.)
Below are some concepts that charities and their officers should consider in determining who should sign their 2012 Forms 990. Subject to the size and human and financial resources available to a charity, the officer who executes the Form 990 should be one who
1. can demonstrate active input and involvement in the Form 990 and financial statement preparation process;
2. has the skill and experience to evaluate personally the quality of the preparation process for both the financial statements and the governance, management, policies and disclosure portions of the Form 990;
3. holds such a position that his/her input will be meaningfully received by the other internal and external preparers of the Form 990;
4. understands and is comfortable with the seriousness of signing the Form 990 on the basis that it is true, correct and complete and executed under penalty of perjury; and
5. is authorized to sign.
While I believe that item 5 has been rarely done on a formal basis by charities, the formal granting of authority to sign the Form 990 will assist the governing body and the executing officer in comprehending the gravity of the Form 990, its filing with the IRS and universal availability on the Internet.
(Michael J. Kline, the author of this entry and a co-author of this blog, is a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP, based in our Princeton, NJ office, and is a past Chair of the firm's Corporate Department. He concentrates his practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and health law, and frequently writes and speaks on topics such as corporate compliance, governance and business and nonprofit law and ethics.)
[To be continued in Installment 89]![]()
↧
↧
California Man Exonerated by DNA Evidence after 14 Years in Prison
Johnny Williams with his attorney, Melissa Dague O'ConnellA California man who was convicted of raping a nine-year-old girl in 1998 was exonerated Friday after new DNA testing secured by the Northern California Innocence Project and the California DNA Project proved his innocence. A previously undetected DNA sample on a T-shirt the girl was wearing at the time of the assault excluded Johnny Williams who was paroled in January after serving 14 years behind bars, reported the Oakland Tribune. In light of the new evidence, the District Attorney's Office agreed to drop charges against Williams, and the Alameda County Superior Court Judge agreed to overturn the conviction. During the investigation, both the Oakland Police Department and the Alameda County District Attorney's Office were unable to pull DNA samples from the girl's clothing. Williams was convicted largely based on the victim's identification which was made at the suggestion of her mother. The victim said her attacker was named Johnny and Williams was the only Johnny she knew from the neighborhood. Following his conviction, Williams wrote a letter to the Northern California Innocence Project seeking assistance, and in 2000, the project began an investigation through its sister organization, the California DNA Project.
"This little girl, just as me, too, we are both victims of this very serious crime, and we both need the person who committed this crime to be brought and placed in prison," Williams said. "If I could, I would help the Oakland Police Department find this person."
Read the full article. Read more about eyewitness misidentification.
↧
Your Consent to Search Has Limits
The facts in the case of Huey Lee Oldham versus the State of Florida are as follows:
Deputies from the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office went to Mr. Oldham's home to investigate a neighbor's complaint that Oldham was manufacturing methamphetamine on his property. As deputies approached the home, they made contact with Oldham who was walking away from a smoldering fire pit on the north side of the residence. One of the deputies explained they were there to investigate a complaint that he was manufacturing methamphetamine on his property. They asked him what he was burning. Mr. Oldham stated that he was stripping and burning copper wire and scrap metal. One of the deputies asked Oldham if he could look around the fire pit area to verify that he was burning copper wire and not manufacturing methamphetamine. Oldham agreed.
The deputy testified that the area around the fire pit was littered with stuff like copper wire, electronics, cinder blocks, and batteries. As the deputy looked around the fire pit, he saw a small “pill-style” plastic case on top of a pile of cinder blocks or electronics. A portion of a plastic baggie was sticking out of the container. The deputy opened the container and saw a white powdery substance that tested positive for methamphetamine.
On appeal, Oldham argued that the officer's search of the closed plastic container exceeded the scope of Oldham's to search the fire pit area. The appellate court agreed with Oldham stating that the deputy's limited request to inspect the fire pit to confirm that Oldham was burning wire and not operating a methamphetamine lab defined the scope of the search he intended to conduct as well as the scope of Oldham's consent.
The appellate court continued on to say that a reasonable person would not have understood this request to include a search of closed containers in the vicinity of the fire pit. Thus, when the deputy opened the plastic case containing the methamphetamine, he exceeded the scope of Oldham's consent.
![]()
↧
Maine Drug Court Process Ruled Unconstitutional
The case of Arnold Gross v. State of Maine challenges the fundamental structure of Maine's drug court system. In the February 25, 2012 decision, Justice William Anderson of the Penobscot County Superior Court found that, allowing a judge who participates in the drug court team, to preside of revocation proceedings, violates a defendant's constitutional rights.Maine's drug court program allows some people facing drug charges to participate in a special treatment oriented court. Defendants plead guilty, are put on probation and given a "good sentence" and a "bad sentence." If they successfully complete the problem program they receive the good sentence, if they are unsuccessful, you get the idea. The drug court team consists of a probation officer prosecutor, treatment providers and the judge. The team does not include the defendant's attorney or the defendant themselves. The team meets frequently to consider an individual's progress through the program, occasionally imposing lesser sanctions including short jail sentences. Ultimately, the team may consider whether an individual should be terminated from the program and given the "bad sentence."A recent case, Arnold Gross v. State of Maine challenges this fundamental structure. Arnold Gross plead guilty to unlawful trafficking in scheduled drugs, a class B felony. He was admitted to drug court with a "good sentence" of fully suspended prison time and probation, his bad sentence was four years in prison. After several months in the program he violated his conditions by having contact with a prohibited person. At the termination hearing Mr. Gross and his attorney were heard on the record amd argued against termination. The drug court team then consulted in private with probation, treatment, the prosecutor and the judge discussing the case off the record. Defense counsel was excluded from these conversations. Proceedings on the record resumed and the court announced the decision to terminate Mr. Gross and sentence him to four years in prison.Gross filed a petition for post conviction review and the reviewing judge found that this procedure violates due process. The judge reasoned that, at the most basic level, due process requieres:Written notice of the alleged conduct the triggers terminationThis closer to the defendant of the evidence against himThe opportunity to be heard in person and to present evidenceThe right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnessesA neutral and detached hearing bodyA statement by the court indicating the reasons for its rulingRepresentation by counselConstitutional requirements not satisfied by Maine's ProcessThe drug court structure creates several problems. First the process creates a risk of judicial impartiality since:the drug court judge becomes extremely familiar with the lives of each participant, and in some circumstances, the judge could have a personal knowledge of facts that would be relevant to a later termination hearing. At the termination hearing, the judge could also be called upon to evaluate the wisdom of validity of prior collaborative decision in which that judge participated.Second, the defendant's confrontation rights and judicial partiality are further compromised since, as a team member, the Judge is constantly made aware of ex parte information about the defendant's progress, by communication with other team members. These communications are not disclosed to the defense, their validity can't be challenged and there's no opportunity to cross-examine witnesses on these specific issues.Third, the drug court judge becomes aware of the team's general attitude about the defendant and also about the other team member's ultimate opinion as to whether a participant should be terminated. This awareness comes not from the termination proceedings but from the judge's participation in team meetings. This further compromises the defendants opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him.Justice Anderson found that the process creates a legitimate risk of due process violation. The court opined that termination proceeding should be handled by a judge who is not part of the drug court team, ordered the revocation and four year sentence vacated, and remained the case for proceedings in front of an impartial judge.What's the Impact?The decision is just a Superior Court Order so it's not statewide precedent. Still, it certainly suggests that the whole state is doing it wrong. If the recomended procedures are followed, Drug Court gets significantly more expensive with an second judge needed for termination, and arguably for lesser sanctions. It's a great decision for the defense who have historically seen drug court as a slow boat to the bad sentence. Maybe impartial judging will put the thing back on track, or maybe courts will decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater rather than fix the problem.
↧
Recanted Testimony in Battery Cases
Ever been under a lot of pressure and emotion, so much so that you said something you shouldn't have said? It happens.
What happens when a couple's night of drinking turns ugly? Ever known an ugly, mean drunk? They exist, believe me. To see what happens when we bring two such people together, take a look at the equations below:
[alcohol] + [arguing] + [anger] = [arrest]
Or, how about this equally valid equation:
[early morning hours] + [yelling and screaming] = [neighbors calling police] = [arrest]
As our community caretakers, the police are in an awful position, as they can't leave the drunk couple together, for fear of escalating troubles. Most police departments have a policy of taking someone--anyone--to jail just to separate and cool off the situation. Thus, the police find a reason to arrest either the man, or the woman, and make a domestic violence battery case out of the situation.
However, once the tempers calm down, and the alcohol metabolizes, some folks regret their drunken sworn statements to police.
In the midst of an often emotional, alcohol soaked domestic dispute, cops fight hard to get a "sworn" statement from an alleged victim of domestic violence battery. Once clearheaded, can the sober witness now tell the truth of the evening's events without fear of perjury or an arrest for filing a false police report? If they do, this is what we call "recantation".
When an alleged victim of domestic violence decides to "recant", this can spell trouble for the prosecution. Why? Because the prosecution may be barred from calling the alleged victim as a witness. A recantation may limit the alleged victim to testifying only about the "new story". Prosecutors are not permitted to call the alleged victim merely to impeach her about what she initially told the police when they know the story has changed. But, the prosecution will attempt to admit the prior statement as a "past recollection recorded". Such a move is often considered abusive where the state has been put on notice that their victim has recanted (and, that's why it's so important for you criminal defense attorneys out there to file a Motion in Limine & Motion to Exclude the victim as a witness, etc. etc.).
↧
↧
NYC Housing Development Fund Corporation Property Manager Indicted for Second Degree Grand Larceny: $250,000 Theft Carries Potential of up to Fifteen Years in Prison
Calling it a theme may be too strong, but Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. is plugging away on his mission to snag, a/k/a, arrest, white collar defendants who commit Grand Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property felonies in New York City. One look at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office website will reveal a laundry list of defendants who have either been indicted for or convicted of a theft or fraud crime. In fact, the website even republishes articles by local newspapers on many of the same cases addressed in these various press releases. It need not take a legal scholar to grasp that C. Vance and Company runs one District Attorney's Office that is serious and aggressive about prosecuting more than Gotham's street crime.
According to the District Attorney's Office, the newest "victim," of law enforcement's watchful eye is Rickey Smith for stealing more than $250,000 from the low-income Housing Development Fund Corporation. No small number, if true, the potential sentence for Grand Larceny in the Second Degree is as much as five to fifteen years in prison. Even though a conviction for New York Penal Law 155.40 does not require imprisonment for a first time offender, there should be little doubt that prosecutors will seek some amount of jail or prison. In addition to Second Degree Grand Larceny, a Grand Jury also indicted Smith for three counts of First Degree Falsifying Business Records. A lesser felony, New York Penal Law 175.10 is punishable by as much as one and one third to four years in state prison.
It is alleged that Smith, who previously served as the property manager for the Housing Development Fund Corporation ("HDFC"), "fleeced" the HDFC for his own personal gain and even purchased a Mercedes for north of $40,000. Smith is believed to have had access to HDFC funds because he managed the day-to-day financial operations of the HDFC properties through his company, Alexa Property Management, LLC.
Although the press release does not reveal what, if any restitution can possible be made, prosecutors contend that between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2010, Smith stole more than $250,000 by making unauthorized wire transfers from HDFC bank accounts to his personal bank accounts. Further, Smith used an HDFC debit card to access monies he was not entitled to use in a personal capacity. Not only did Smith allegedly purchase a vehicle with these funds, but it is believed monies were used by Smith to work on his own home. Ultimately, to hide the alleged fraud, prosecutors believe Smith created false or fake financial reports or documents.
Whether it is the Manhattan District Attorney's Office or prosecutors from Queens or other New York Counties, law enforcement is pursuing white collar crime at a greater rate than it did years ago. Whether this is a product of the tough economic times where each dollar must be accounted for, investigating and prosecuting theft offenses from government and pseudo-government agencies will not likely slow down any time soon.
Whether Smith's best defense is to mitigate his conduct, pay restitution as best he can or to challenge the "paper trail" is yet to be seen. Was there a confession? Where search warrants, if any, proper? Time will certainly tell.
To read and learn more about any theft crime in New York including Grand Larceny and any fraud offense including Falsifying Business Records, a review of the links above as well as the websites and blogs below will reveal ample information on these topics.
A New York City criminal defense firm established by two former Manhattan prosecutors, the New York criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland PC represent clients in all New York white collar crimes from investigation through trial.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
"ProPublica: Everything We Know About What Data Brokers Know About You"
The piece is excerpted at FourthAmendment.com: Data companies are scooping up enormous amounts of information about almost every American. They sell information about whether you're pregnant or divorced or trying to lose weight, about how rich you are and what...
↧
Virginia Man Exonerated by DNA Evidence
A Virginia man who was convicted of a 1976 abduction of a woman and her two children was exonerated Friday when his writ of actual innocence was granted by the Virginia Supreme Court after DNA testing excluded him from evidence found on the woman's clothing. The DNA evidence that proved Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project client Garry Diamond's innocence was uncovered by the Virginia Department of Forensic Science's ongoing review of old case files that contain biological evidence, reported the Associated Press.
"It's another DNA exoneration out of Virginia, which goes to show that unfortunately there have been far more errors than people realize," said Diamond's lawyer, Shawn Armbrust of the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project.
According to Armbrust, the state's review of old cases has now led to eight overturned convictions. Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli office supported Diamond's petition for a writ of actual innocence. Read the full article. Read more about Virginia DNA exonerations.
↧
How can a Family Law attorney help me with child custody modification?
If you are unhappy with a prior child custody order, you will need to petition the court to modify it. You will also have to show there has been a material change in the living situation of yourself or of...
↧
↧
E.D.Pa.: Officer corroborated tip when they saw defendant with gun; hot pursuit into residence valid
Officers got a man with a gun wearing a leather jacket with a hoodie on the street. Responding, defendant matched the description. When he saw a gun in defendant’s waistband, the report, even if anonymous, was completely corroborated. When defendant ran into a building, that was hot pursuit under Warden v. Hayden. United States v. Mallory, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33532 (E.D. Pa. March 11, 2013).
Where defendant’s own version of the events shows the search to be legal, a hearing isn’t required. United States v. Young, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33496 (W.D. N.Y. January 16, 2013).*
The state conceded standing, but the appeals court disagreed because it was a rental car that defendant had never been in. Even assuming there was a Fourth Amendment violation, the state showed inevitable discovery. State v. Horsley, 2013 Ohio 901, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 793 (4th Dist. February 8, 2013).*
↧
Freispruch nach Vergewaltigungsvorwurf durch eigene Mitarbeiterin
Ein 42-jähriger Inhaber einer Sicherheitsfirma wurde von einer damals 21-jährigen ehemaligen Mitarbeiterin der Vergewaltigung bezichtigt. Vor dem Schöffengericht in Reutlingen bestritt der Angeklagte die Tat. Die Frau berichtete, dass es 2010 während der Arbeit geschehen sein soll. Nach der angeblichen Tat hätte sie jedoch normal weitergearbeitet. Angezeigt hatte die junge Frau den Angeklagten jedoch . . . → Read More: Freispruch nach Vergewaltigungsvorwurf durch eigene Mitarbeiterin
↧
Fender Bender Reckless Driving Tickets
Some people are surprised when they’re in a fender bender and the trooper gives them a reckless driving ticket. Sometimes the trooper has nothing else to charge other than reckless driving. This typically happens when a driver rear-ends a stopped vehicle. The liability is usually clear – the rear-ender is at fault. However, a simple [...]
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
