As a Minnesota Criminal Defense Attorney, I like to stay up-to-date on the big upcoming trials in Minnesota. Clearly, the one to keep an eye on right now is the murder trial of Jeffery Trevino. If you're not familiar with the name, Trevino is the man accused of killing his wife and then leaving her car in the parking ramp of the Mall of America. His wife, Kira Steger, was found in early May in the Mississippi River, although Trevino had been charged over 2 months prior to her discovery.
There appears to be the potential for some very emotional testimony from Steger's family members and co-workers during this trial, but the big issue may be how the evidence police found in the Trevino/Steger home is dealt with. In the complaint, police note that there was blood in the home and evidence of an attempted clean up. Trevino's defense attorney, John Conrad of Woodbury, MN, has indicated that forensic evidence regarding the couple's home may play a role in Trevino's defense, but has understandably not elaborated on that issue.
Ultimately, it's the forensic evidence that will most interest me about this case. Any time cases get very scientific, I'm interested to see how juries handle the evidence. Emotion is a much easier thing for everyday people to understand, so sometimes good scientific evidence is given less weight than powerful testimony by still grieving friends and family. I'm very interested to see how this case plays out.
As the trial moves forward, I will try to give updates as to how the proceedings are going in this space. So, if you want to get a Minnesota Criminal Defense Attorney's take on one of the most interesting criminal trials of the year, stay tuned for further details.
If you or a loved one are facing criminal charges ranging from DWI's to serious felonies, hiring a Minnesota Criminal Defense Attorney is of the utmost importance. Call or email a criminal defense attorney practicing in your jurisdiction today to ensure the best possible defense moving forward.
Showing posts with label criminal law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label criminal law. Show all posts
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Monday, April 9, 2012
Know Your Rights, Pt. 2: At Your Home
Today, we'll continue on with our dissection of your rights regarding contact with the police. Last week, we kicked this series off by look at what you have to do and what you don't have to do when pulled over in your vehicle. Today, we'll examine the less common but more "fraught-with-potential-disaster" situation of police showing up at your home in an effort to speak with you. Again, keep in mind, this information is intended to be used only as a rough guideline to use if you're put in a situation like this. If you encounter a situation where police show up at your home to speak with you about your involvement in a crime or your knowledge of a crime, the best thing you can do is contact a Minnesota criminal defense attorney immediately in order to best protect your rights.
We'll set the stage. You're at home on a lazy Thursday evening preparing dinner and watching your favorite television program (maybe "Family Feud with Steve Harvey") when, all of a sudden, there is a loud knock at your front door. You walk over to the door, look through the peep hole, and see two uniformed police officers standing on the other side. At this point, you're mind is racing. "What could they want?" you wonder. Every little misdeed you've ever committed is now at the forefront of your mind. Startled and vulnerable, you open the door. (Note: You're not required to open the door. You can tell them through the door that you'd prefer to not open it for them, but unless you've got marijuana smoke billowing out of your front door or something like that, just open the door.)
You greet the officers with a simple "Good evening." They ask if you are you, to which you reply "yes." The officer on your left (who's clearly in charge of this show) tells you that they're investigating a break-in that occurred down the street a couple of nights ago and were wondering you could answer a few questions for them. This is the beginning of when you need to be vigilant regarding your rights. What you tell the officers will be used by them to attempt to solve the mystery of the break-in. Whether or not you are a suspect in the crime doesn't matter. The job of police is to solve crimes, and if you give them a reason to wonder whether you were involved, they will.
Your response to their initial questions should be something along the lines of "I'm not sure I'll be of much assistance to you, officers, but I'll do my best to help." Police have a tough job, and offering to help them in any way you can will go a long ways. Whether you are a suspect or not, it's likely that you will be asked if the officers can come inside. You do not have to let them into your home, so it's completely up to you whether you choose to allow them in. There are two reasons officers want to come inside to question you. One is comfort, both theirs and yours. Sitting on your couch and talking is much more comfortable than standing outside in the cold to speak with you. You will probably be more comfortable, as well, because sitting in your living room with the police is a lot less intimidating than going to the station to give a statement. The second reason is that by gaining entrance to your home, the officers will have the opportunity to look around and see if any of the missing items from the burglarized house are in your home. I know the odds seem small that the actual thief would be dumb enough to leave stolen materials laying around their house, but you'd be surprised. Police don't use this trick because it's a waste of time. Even if you aren't the person who broke into the house in question, it's possible that you have the same television, pewter picture frame, or Target-issue lamp that the victims had taken from them. You can save yourself the hassle of proving that your property is, indeed, your property by just telling the officers that you're perfectly comfortable speaking in your doorway.
By talking to the officers at your doorstep, you might encourage them to be a little quicker with their line of questioning. If it's cold or there's precipitation falling, they likely won't take too much of your time. Unless you're a suspect, it's unlikely they'll ask you to accompany them to the station to speak, but we'll get to that scenario on Wednesday. For the time being, offer to speak to them at the doorstep. If you'd be more comfortable speaking with the door chain connected, feel free to do so. Do not walk outside and don't let them inside.
Now, once they start asking questions, it's very important to listen carefully to what kinds of things they are asking you. If, in your opinion, the questions they are asking you are intended to determine your level of involvement in the crime they are investigating, you should refuse to answer any more questions without your attorney present. Questions that should trigger this concern are things like "where were you the night of...," or anything that seems overly broad. If they ask something like "Do you know anything about the burglary?" you need to be wary about how long of an answer you give. This type of questions encourages the questioned party to offer up a lot of information without a specific path. The best thing to do is to keep your answers to any questions short to avoid offering up information you didn't intend to disclose.
If the officers are asking questions like "Did you see or hear anything out of the ordinary" or "Have you noticed any suspicious people in the neighborhood in recent days," it's unlikely they consider you anything other than a potential witness. Many times, people witness a crime without even realizing it. Police know this, so they ask these kinds of questions to see if you noticed something that you didn't realize might be connected with the crime. Feel free to answer these questions.
If you are the focus of a criminal investigation, the officers might not be so friendly. If the officers really want entrance into your home, they will say a lot of things to try to get you to consent. It's much easier for them to get permission to enter than it is for them to go to a judge and get a warrant. They'll say things like "This will go a lot easier if you just let us in," "We just want to ask you a few questions. You don't have anything to worry about," or "If you don't let us in, we'll just go get a warrant and try this again." Remember that no matter what the police say to you, they don't have the right to enter your home without your permission unless they have a warrant. Tell them to get the warrant and then come back. Again, if they want to talk to you bad enough, they will ask you to come with them to the station. I'll tell you what to do in that situation on Wednesday.
If the police just want to know if you saw anything that could be useful to them, the conversation will likely be pretty quick. If they are investigating you to determine if you had any involvement in the crime, it may be a more lengthy conversation if you allow it to continue. Again, if you believe that the line of questioning being utilized by police is an attempt to build a case against you or support a charge against you, refrain from answering any further questions and contact a Minnesota criminal defense lawyer immediately. Even if you KNOW you are not responsible for the crime in question, this won't protect you from being charged, or even from being convicted. Don't leave your freedom up to chance. Contact your local Minnesota defense attorney to make sure you are protected.
As always, none of the information contained within this article is intended to act as legal advice or advertising. Minnesota Criminal Law Blog is intended to be used for entertainment purposes only. If you are in need of legal advice or representation, stop looking to internet articles for answers and call or email a Minnesota criminal law attorney today.
We'll set the stage. You're at home on a lazy Thursday evening preparing dinner and watching your favorite television program (maybe "Family Feud with Steve Harvey") when, all of a sudden, there is a loud knock at your front door. You walk over to the door, look through the peep hole, and see two uniformed police officers standing on the other side. At this point, you're mind is racing. "What could they want?" you wonder. Every little misdeed you've ever committed is now at the forefront of your mind. Startled and vulnerable, you open the door. (Note: You're not required to open the door. You can tell them through the door that you'd prefer to not open it for them, but unless you've got marijuana smoke billowing out of your front door or something like that, just open the door.)
You greet the officers with a simple "Good evening." They ask if you are you, to which you reply "yes." The officer on your left (who's clearly in charge of this show) tells you that they're investigating a break-in that occurred down the street a couple of nights ago and were wondering you could answer a few questions for them. This is the beginning of when you need to be vigilant regarding your rights. What you tell the officers will be used by them to attempt to solve the mystery of the break-in. Whether or not you are a suspect in the crime doesn't matter. The job of police is to solve crimes, and if you give them a reason to wonder whether you were involved, they will.
Your response to their initial questions should be something along the lines of "I'm not sure I'll be of much assistance to you, officers, but I'll do my best to help." Police have a tough job, and offering to help them in any way you can will go a long ways. Whether you are a suspect or not, it's likely that you will be asked if the officers can come inside. You do not have to let them into your home, so it's completely up to you whether you choose to allow them in. There are two reasons officers want to come inside to question you. One is comfort, both theirs and yours. Sitting on your couch and talking is much more comfortable than standing outside in the cold to speak with you. You will probably be more comfortable, as well, because sitting in your living room with the police is a lot less intimidating than going to the station to give a statement. The second reason is that by gaining entrance to your home, the officers will have the opportunity to look around and see if any of the missing items from the burglarized house are in your home. I know the odds seem small that the actual thief would be dumb enough to leave stolen materials laying around their house, but you'd be surprised. Police don't use this trick because it's a waste of time. Even if you aren't the person who broke into the house in question, it's possible that you have the same television, pewter picture frame, or Target-issue lamp that the victims had taken from them. You can save yourself the hassle of proving that your property is, indeed, your property by just telling the officers that you're perfectly comfortable speaking in your doorway.
By talking to the officers at your doorstep, you might encourage them to be a little quicker with their line of questioning. If it's cold or there's precipitation falling, they likely won't take too much of your time. Unless you're a suspect, it's unlikely they'll ask you to accompany them to the station to speak, but we'll get to that scenario on Wednesday. For the time being, offer to speak to them at the doorstep. If you'd be more comfortable speaking with the door chain connected, feel free to do so. Do not walk outside and don't let them inside.
Now, once they start asking questions, it's very important to listen carefully to what kinds of things they are asking you. If, in your opinion, the questions they are asking you are intended to determine your level of involvement in the crime they are investigating, you should refuse to answer any more questions without your attorney present. Questions that should trigger this concern are things like "where were you the night of...," or anything that seems overly broad. If they ask something like "Do you know anything about the burglary?" you need to be wary about how long of an answer you give. This type of questions encourages the questioned party to offer up a lot of information without a specific path. The best thing to do is to keep your answers to any questions short to avoid offering up information you didn't intend to disclose.
If the officers are asking questions like "Did you see or hear anything out of the ordinary" or "Have you noticed any suspicious people in the neighborhood in recent days," it's unlikely they consider you anything other than a potential witness. Many times, people witness a crime without even realizing it. Police know this, so they ask these kinds of questions to see if you noticed something that you didn't realize might be connected with the crime. Feel free to answer these questions.
If you are the focus of a criminal investigation, the officers might not be so friendly. If the officers really want entrance into your home, they will say a lot of things to try to get you to consent. It's much easier for them to get permission to enter than it is for them to go to a judge and get a warrant. They'll say things like "This will go a lot easier if you just let us in," "We just want to ask you a few questions. You don't have anything to worry about," or "If you don't let us in, we'll just go get a warrant and try this again." Remember that no matter what the police say to you, they don't have the right to enter your home without your permission unless they have a warrant. Tell them to get the warrant and then come back. Again, if they want to talk to you bad enough, they will ask you to come with them to the station. I'll tell you what to do in that situation on Wednesday.
If the police just want to know if you saw anything that could be useful to them, the conversation will likely be pretty quick. If they are investigating you to determine if you had any involvement in the crime, it may be a more lengthy conversation if you allow it to continue. Again, if you believe that the line of questioning being utilized by police is an attempt to build a case against you or support a charge against you, refrain from answering any further questions and contact a Minnesota criminal defense lawyer immediately. Even if you KNOW you are not responsible for the crime in question, this won't protect you from being charged, or even from being convicted. Don't leave your freedom up to chance. Contact your local Minnesota defense attorney to make sure you are protected.
As always, none of the information contained within this article is intended to act as legal advice or advertising. Minnesota Criminal Law Blog is intended to be used for entertainment purposes only. If you are in need of legal advice or representation, stop looking to internet articles for answers and call or email a Minnesota criminal law attorney today.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Ultimate Showdown! Private Defense Attorneys vs. Public Defenders
Many shoppers out there believe they have two options in choosing an attorney to defend them in a criminal case. 1) Hiring their own private defense attorney, or 2) Choosing to go with the public defender provided by the state/county. People believe this to be true because of the case Miranda vs. Arizona which states that every accused person has the right to an attorney. If one cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for them. It's that last sentence that gets a lot of people in trouble.
The general consensus among people unfamiliar with the legal system is that YOU get to decide whether or not you can afford a defense attorney. This, as you may be realizing, is not the case. Requirements vary depending on the state, county within the state, and type of crime you have been charged with, but in Minnesota, there are very strict income limits for people receiving free legal representation. In other words, being able to afford an attorney is different than not wanting to pay for one. Even if you don't make too much money, if you have assets you could liquidate (an extra vehicle, a boat, a cabin up north that you use for recreation, your first born child), the courts are well within their rights to ask you to liquidate them before they will offer you free legal services. So, most people charged with crimes do not qualify for public defenders. This leaves you with two options: 1) Hire your own lawyer, or 2) represent yourself pro se. I would NEVER recommend representing yourself in any case that could carry with it significant fines or jail time. The average citizen, as bright as he or she may be, simply is not equipped to deal with all the ins and outs of criminal defense. They don't make us lawyers go to law school for three years before we can even sit for the bar for no reason. Practicing law is tough and, in most cases, should be left to the professionals. You wouldn't perform your own heart surgery. You shouldn't defend your own criminal cases, either.
So, now you know that you likely don't qualify for public defender services. But what if you do? What if you have been struck down by the economy, are having a tough time making ends meet, and got mixed up in something for which you are being charged with a crime. Should you go with the public defender if you qualify for one? I know if I recommend "no," that may ring a bit hollow, seeing as BDH Law Office is a for-profit private law firm that benefits from people deciding not to employ a public defender. However, I truly do believe that if you can scratch up enough money to pay for a private attorney, whether it be by borrowing from friends or family, or even asking from donations from people from your local church, it will be worth it for you in the end.
I would never disparage the work that public defenders do. Public defenders are one of the reasons the legal system works. They often work for much less than they are worth and work too hard for what they are paid. They don't get to choose their clients -- they care chosen for them. They do an admirable job considering the circumstances under which they are required to operate. If it wasn't for public defenders, innocent people would be sent to jail FAR more frequently. The problem with accepting a public defender to defend your case is that the system is broken. Funding for PD's has gone down significantly over the years and there simply aren't enough public defenders to handle the case load they are burdened with. This lack of time, resources, and flexibility make juggling the workload very difficult for most PD's. They put in every bit as much effort as a private attorney, but their time is simply stretched too thin for them to give every client they have the attention they deserve. This often can lead to missed details, delays in your trial (if indeed your case goes to trial), and a weaker relationship between you and your attorney.
Private attorneys have the ability to limit their case load to a number of clients they are comfortable with. If they don't have room, they often will refer you to an attorney who might. You are paying for the services of a private attorney, unlike with a public defender, but you get a lot for your money. You get someone who will put in the necessary time to make sure all the "i's" are dotted and "t's" crossed regarding your defense. While there are obvious benefits to a public defender settling a case just to get it over with (lessening their caseload, helping their client end the proceedings quickly, creating more time for other clients), private attorneys need to be successful to continue to get clients. The last thing any Minnesota criminal defense lawyer wants to do is get a reputation as someone who pleads out every case they handle. A lawyer who recommends accepting a plea all the time isn't an attorney who seems willing to go to war for you. You need a lawyer who will help you find the best possible outcome for your case and then fight to get it. If your attorney feels the best you can do is accept a plea offered up by the prosecution, then so be it. What you don't want is an attorney who is suggesting a plea because they don't have time to handle your case properly.
If you've been charged with a crime, be it a felony, misdemeanor, or DWI, it's important to have legal representation. If you really cannot afford an attorney, then it's certainly better to work with a public defender to make sure you have a competent, experienced attorney on your side. However, even if you do qualify to use a public defender, if you think you can make it work financially, hiring a private Minnesota criminal defense attorney is going to give you the piece of mind that you get from knowing someone is willing to battle for your rights.
As always, none of the proceeding is intended to act as legal advice in any way. If you have been charged with a crime or fear that you may be charged with one soon, please contact a Minnesota criminal defense lawyer immediately to set yourself up with the best possible opportunity to succeed in your defense.
The general consensus among people unfamiliar with the legal system is that YOU get to decide whether or not you can afford a defense attorney. This, as you may be realizing, is not the case. Requirements vary depending on the state, county within the state, and type of crime you have been charged with, but in Minnesota, there are very strict income limits for people receiving free legal representation. In other words, being able to afford an attorney is different than not wanting to pay for one. Even if you don't make too much money, if you have assets you could liquidate (an extra vehicle, a boat, a cabin up north that you use for recreation, your first born child), the courts are well within their rights to ask you to liquidate them before they will offer you free legal services. So, most people charged with crimes do not qualify for public defenders. This leaves you with two options: 1) Hire your own lawyer, or 2) represent yourself pro se. I would NEVER recommend representing yourself in any case that could carry with it significant fines or jail time. The average citizen, as bright as he or she may be, simply is not equipped to deal with all the ins and outs of criminal defense. They don't make us lawyers go to law school for three years before we can even sit for the bar for no reason. Practicing law is tough and, in most cases, should be left to the professionals. You wouldn't perform your own heart surgery. You shouldn't defend your own criminal cases, either.
So, now you know that you likely don't qualify for public defender services. But what if you do? What if you have been struck down by the economy, are having a tough time making ends meet, and got mixed up in something for which you are being charged with a crime. Should you go with the public defender if you qualify for one? I know if I recommend "no," that may ring a bit hollow, seeing as BDH Law Office is a for-profit private law firm that benefits from people deciding not to employ a public defender. However, I truly do believe that if you can scratch up enough money to pay for a private attorney, whether it be by borrowing from friends or family, or even asking from donations from people from your local church, it will be worth it for you in the end.
I would never disparage the work that public defenders do. Public defenders are one of the reasons the legal system works. They often work for much less than they are worth and work too hard for what they are paid. They don't get to choose their clients -- they care chosen for them. They do an admirable job considering the circumstances under which they are required to operate. If it wasn't for public defenders, innocent people would be sent to jail FAR more frequently. The problem with accepting a public defender to defend your case is that the system is broken. Funding for PD's has gone down significantly over the years and there simply aren't enough public defenders to handle the case load they are burdened with. This lack of time, resources, and flexibility make juggling the workload very difficult for most PD's. They put in every bit as much effort as a private attorney, but their time is simply stretched too thin for them to give every client they have the attention they deserve. This often can lead to missed details, delays in your trial (if indeed your case goes to trial), and a weaker relationship between you and your attorney.
Private attorneys have the ability to limit their case load to a number of clients they are comfortable with. If they don't have room, they often will refer you to an attorney who might. You are paying for the services of a private attorney, unlike with a public defender, but you get a lot for your money. You get someone who will put in the necessary time to make sure all the "i's" are dotted and "t's" crossed regarding your defense. While there are obvious benefits to a public defender settling a case just to get it over with (lessening their caseload, helping their client end the proceedings quickly, creating more time for other clients), private attorneys need to be successful to continue to get clients. The last thing any Minnesota criminal defense lawyer wants to do is get a reputation as someone who pleads out every case they handle. A lawyer who recommends accepting a plea all the time isn't an attorney who seems willing to go to war for you. You need a lawyer who will help you find the best possible outcome for your case and then fight to get it. If your attorney feels the best you can do is accept a plea offered up by the prosecution, then so be it. What you don't want is an attorney who is suggesting a plea because they don't have time to handle your case properly.
If you've been charged with a crime, be it a felony, misdemeanor, or DWI, it's important to have legal representation. If you really cannot afford an attorney, then it's certainly better to work with a public defender to make sure you have a competent, experienced attorney on your side. However, even if you do qualify to use a public defender, if you think you can make it work financially, hiring a private Minnesota criminal defense attorney is going to give you the piece of mind that you get from knowing someone is willing to battle for your rights.
As always, none of the proceeding is intended to act as legal advice in any way. If you have been charged with a crime or fear that you may be charged with one soon, please contact a Minnesota criminal defense lawyer immediately to set yourself up with the best possible opportunity to succeed in your defense.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
The Increasingly Odd Joran Van der Sloot Case
I think most people are familiar with the trial of Dutch national Joran Van der Sloot taking place in Peru. Van der Sloot is accused of murdering Stephanie Flores. He was also a top suspect in the Natalie Holloway killing back in 2005, but was never formally charged with the still unsolved crime.
This case has been back in the news recently, and the trial for Van der Sloot was scheduled to begin on Friday, Jan. 6. It was expected that Van der Sloot was going to plead guilty in light of his confession to the crime to Peruvian police, despite his attorney consistently telling the media that his client's confession was the result of police coercion and a language barrier.
There was no official guilty plea entered on Friday, however, as Van der Sloot instead requested more time to more thoroughly consider his plea. This is interesting for a couple reasons. First, Van der Sloot is still expected to plead guilty in order to garner a more favorable sentence, so it's unlikely this delay will result in any change of strategy. His decision to delay this plea is indicative of a lack of preparation on the part of the defense team. Second, all indications are that Van der Sloot was prepared to plead guilty when he walked into the court room, but was not in agreement with all the charges laid against him. His confusion regarding what he was pleading guilty to is something that should be avoidable.
Ultimately, it is unlikely this delay in the proceedings will have any real affect on the outcome of the trial, but if Van der Sloot comes back on Wednesday and pleads not guilty, many questions will rise regarding the rationale behind his plea.
An important element to conducting a competent legal defense is preparation. The attorney and their client should show up to any hearing regarding their case ready to participate fully. This is important for a few reasons. First, it creates an air of confidence that judges, jury members, and the prosecution will pick up on. As the great Tony Soprano once said, "More is lost by indecision than wrong decision," and he knows a thing or two about defending criminal charges. Second, being prepared can make your representation cheaper. Being on the ball can lower the billable hours your attorney is working, meaning that you will get the same effective counsel for less of your hard-earned money. Lastly, delays due to a lack of preparation will drag out the proceedings, meaning that this experience will take up more of your life than it has to. Delaying unpleasant situations is as American as apple pie, but the truth is that in the legal world, it's best to get things over with as fast as possible, assuming you aren't sacrificing the quality of your defense for expedition.
It isn't hard to avoid being a part of snafus like this. One of the jobs of a criminal defense attorney is to make sure that his or her client is fully prepared and informed. If you're in need of representation regarding a criminal charge, be the charge is something straight forward like a DWI or something complex like felony assault, contact a Minnesota criminal defense lawyer as soon as possible so you aren't wasting valuable time.
Friday, December 30, 2011
2011's Most Interesting MN Supreme Court Ruling on a Criminal Defense Appeal
One of my favorite things to do when I have a few extra minutes (usually over my morning coffee) is to head over to the MN Supreme Court rulings and read through the recent criminal defense appeals that have gone to a decision. This is a great way for Minnesota criminal defense attorneys to stay up to date on the ever-changing precedents regarding criminal defense, while at the same time learning some do's and don'ts of representing clients.
My favorite case of the year was the review of a conviction of a Minneapolis man for aiding and abetting first degree premeditated murder for the benefit of a gang. The case involved a drive by shooting perpetrated allegedly by one gang against another. The usual appeals were present (insufficient assistance of counsel, statutory bar of conviction, insufficient evidence, etc...), but what made this case so interesting was that the principle party who fired the shots was only convicted of 2nd degree murder, whereas his accomplice was convicted of aiding and abetting first degree murder. The reasonable assumption is that if the actual murderer was found to have not committed 1st degree murder, his accomplice could therefore not be found to have aided and abetted such a crime.
This was the argument made by the appellant's attorney, citing Minn.Stat. 609.05, claiming that it precluded the appellant's conviction of this specific crime. Unfortunately, the statute does the exact opposite of that, in that it expressly prohibits such a charge under these circumstances. The pertinent section reads,
"person liable for the crimes of another may be charged with and convicted of the crime although the person who directly committed it has not been convicted, or has been convicted of some other degree of the crime or of some other crime based on the same act."
Clearly, Minnesota statutory law was in favor of the state in this situation, meaning that the appellant's attorney was likely grasping at straws with this objection. The eyewitness evidence was pretty overwhelming in this case, and both the appellant and his attorney were likely doing whatever they could think of to get his sentence reduced from life without possibility of release to something involving the possibility of parole.
Other interesting nuggets from this case involve how differently juries and judges can see the same facts. In the trial for the trigger-man, the defense elected for a bench trial. The judge in that case concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove premeditation on the part of the shooter, as well as to prove the group he was a member of qualified as a "gang" under the relevant Minnesota statute. Given the exact same facts (presumably), the jury in the accomplice's trial found sufficient evidence to support both of those claims, making a conviction at the level of 1st degree murder easier to justify. In cases like this where there is the possibility of a high amount of prejudice against the defendant and a high level of emotion, it would not be unreasonable for the defense to ask for a bench trial as opposed to a jury trial. Jury's tend to feed off the emotion of the proceedings more than will a judge, who has made impartiality his living.
This case illustrates just how complicated and nuanced criminal cases can be, and how important it is to have a competent criminal defense attorney on your side. While not every case has the repercussions of a murder trial, there is no such thing as a minor criminal conviction. Any conviction can cost you privileges, freedom, and the ability to gain employment, so regardless of what crime you are being charged with, be sure to contact a Minnesota criminal defense attorney immediately to set up a plan of action regarding your case. Doing so could be the difference in guilt or innocence.
If you want to read more MN appellate court rulings, check out http://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/. Here you can find both Court of Appeals rulings as well as Supreme Court rulings.
Here's hoping everybody has a happy, safe, and crime-free New Year!
My favorite case of the year was the review of a conviction of a Minneapolis man for aiding and abetting first degree premeditated murder for the benefit of a gang. The case involved a drive by shooting perpetrated allegedly by one gang against another. The usual appeals were present (insufficient assistance of counsel, statutory bar of conviction, insufficient evidence, etc...), but what made this case so interesting was that the principle party who fired the shots was only convicted of 2nd degree murder, whereas his accomplice was convicted of aiding and abetting first degree murder. The reasonable assumption is that if the actual murderer was found to have not committed 1st degree murder, his accomplice could therefore not be found to have aided and abetted such a crime.
This was the argument made by the appellant's attorney, citing Minn.Stat. 609.05, claiming that it precluded the appellant's conviction of this specific crime. Unfortunately, the statute does the exact opposite of that, in that it expressly prohibits such a charge under these circumstances. The pertinent section reads,
"person liable for the crimes of another may be charged with and convicted of the crime although the person who directly committed it has not been convicted, or has been convicted of some other degree of the crime or of some other crime based on the same act."
Clearly, Minnesota statutory law was in favor of the state in this situation, meaning that the appellant's attorney was likely grasping at straws with this objection. The eyewitness evidence was pretty overwhelming in this case, and both the appellant and his attorney were likely doing whatever they could think of to get his sentence reduced from life without possibility of release to something involving the possibility of parole.
Other interesting nuggets from this case involve how differently juries and judges can see the same facts. In the trial for the trigger-man, the defense elected for a bench trial. The judge in that case concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove premeditation on the part of the shooter, as well as to prove the group he was a member of qualified as a "gang" under the relevant Minnesota statute. Given the exact same facts (presumably), the jury in the accomplice's trial found sufficient evidence to support both of those claims, making a conviction at the level of 1st degree murder easier to justify. In cases like this where there is the possibility of a high amount of prejudice against the defendant and a high level of emotion, it would not be unreasonable for the defense to ask for a bench trial as opposed to a jury trial. Jury's tend to feed off the emotion of the proceedings more than will a judge, who has made impartiality his living.
This case illustrates just how complicated and nuanced criminal cases can be, and how important it is to have a competent criminal defense attorney on your side. While not every case has the repercussions of a murder trial, there is no such thing as a minor criminal conviction. Any conviction can cost you privileges, freedom, and the ability to gain employment, so regardless of what crime you are being charged with, be sure to contact a Minnesota criminal defense attorney immediately to set up a plan of action regarding your case. Doing so could be the difference in guilt or innocence.
If you want to read more MN appellate court rulings, check out http://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/. Here you can find both Court of Appeals rulings as well as Supreme Court rulings.
Here's hoping everybody has a happy, safe, and crime-free New Year!
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Let's Get This Rolling!
Welcome! You have stumbled upon Minnesota's newest legal blog covering the topics of criminal law and defense. Hopefully you are here for entertainment purposes only, but if you have been charged with a crime and are looking for answers, hopefully you'll be able to find something of use within these pages!
BDH Law Office is a criminal defense firm located just minutes north of St. Paul, MN. From the smallest traffic offense to the most severe felony charge, criminal proceedings are full of nuance and pitfalls that can really hurt your reputation, impede your rights, and even hinder your ability to find employment. In this blog, you will have the opportunity to read about cases in the news that we find interesting, see questions asked by other readers, and learn about common misconceptions and myths regarding criminal defense. I'll be posting to this blog 3 or 4 times a week, so check back often to stay up to date with all the goings on in Minnesota criminal law!
In the mean time, feel free to check out the other social network outlets for the BDH Law Office. Our Twitter handle is @bdhlawoffice. Follow us on Twitter to get updates about our practice, as well as info and opinions regarding the world of criminal law. Join our group on Facebook at facebook.com/bdhlawoffice. Be a part of the discussion boards, participate in polls, and even chat directly with an attorney.
You can also check out our entry on LawGuru under Minnesota law firms. The official website of BDH Law Office can be found at bdhlawoffice.com. You can read more about our firm, our areas of practice, and our attorneys. You can even fill out a contact form with a short summary of your situation directly to an attorney at BDH Law Office in order to have your case reviewed. Whether we feel like we can help you or not, a BDH Law Office attorney will be in touch with you within the hour to discuss your situation with you.
Nothing on this blog is intended act as legal advice. It is solely for entertainment purposes. If you have been charged with a crime or believe you will be charged with a crime, no amount of internet research will be sufficient to ensure the success of your case. Contact a Minnesota criminal defense attorney immediately to get specific advice and guidance regarding your situation.
Thanks, everyone!
BDH Law Office is a criminal defense firm located just minutes north of St. Paul, MN. From the smallest traffic offense to the most severe felony charge, criminal proceedings are full of nuance and pitfalls that can really hurt your reputation, impede your rights, and even hinder your ability to find employment. In this blog, you will have the opportunity to read about cases in the news that we find interesting, see questions asked by other readers, and learn about common misconceptions and myths regarding criminal defense. I'll be posting to this blog 3 or 4 times a week, so check back often to stay up to date with all the goings on in Minnesota criminal law!
In the mean time, feel free to check out the other social network outlets for the BDH Law Office. Our Twitter handle is @bdhlawoffice. Follow us on Twitter to get updates about our practice, as well as info and opinions regarding the world of criminal law. Join our group on Facebook at facebook.com/bdhlawoffice. Be a part of the discussion boards, participate in polls, and even chat directly with an attorney.
You can also check out our entry on LawGuru under Minnesota law firms. The official website of BDH Law Office can be found at bdhlawoffice.com. You can read more about our firm, our areas of practice, and our attorneys. You can even fill out a contact form with a short summary of your situation directly to an attorney at BDH Law Office in order to have your case reviewed. Whether we feel like we can help you or not, a BDH Law Office attorney will be in touch with you within the hour to discuss your situation with you.
Nothing on this blog is intended act as legal advice. It is solely for entertainment purposes. If you have been charged with a crime or believe you will be charged with a crime, no amount of internet research will be sufficient to ensure the success of your case. Contact a Minnesota criminal defense attorney immediately to get specific advice and guidance regarding your situation.
Thanks, everyone!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)