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 trial preparation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trial preparation. Show all posts
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Friday, May 25, 2012
Amy Senser Trial Update: Appeals Process Gets Interesting
The saga that is the Amy Senser vehicular homicide case seems as though it may have no end. Last week, in an unsurprising move, Senser's defense attorney, Eric Nelson, filed a motion to have the jury verdict in Senser's case either overturn the verdict entirely or to issue a new trial.
The issue at the crux of this motion was a not found written by the jury that they wished to have read out loud before their final verdict was read in court. The judge decided not to read the note, instead passing it off to the prosecutors and giving it no weight. So, just what did this magic note say that's got everybody so riled up?
"We believe that Mrs. Senser thought she hit a vehicle, not a person."
Oh, boy.
This note brings up a number of different questions, most of which can be answered by examining the jury instructions given to the 12 members before being sequestered. The instructions gave the jurors the duty to convict Mrs. Senser if knew she caused injury, death, or damage to another vehicle. Inexplicably, Nelson did not object to the inclusion of the "damage to another vehicle" section of the instructions. What this means, ultimately, is that the jurors' note doesn't change what their verdict would have been had they believed Senser hit a person.
Nelson really has no one here to blame but himself for this problem. His whole defense strategy revolved around creating the idea that Mrs. Senser thought she hit something other than a person. Ultimately, it worked, but the jury instructions allowed them to convict Senser, anyway.
I think the lack of an on-record objection from Nelson will likely be the downfall of this appeal, but what is clear is that there was confusion among the jurors. If this appeal continues down the line to higher courts, I could see a scenario where it is remanded for a retrial due to this apparent confusion. It's important for jurors to know exactly what they're convicting someone of as opposed to guessing at a moving target.
I doubt this appeals process will end anytime soon. In the meantime, sentencing of Senser can proceed as scheduled. If, by chance, the verdict is overturned, Senser would be released from jail and the prosecution would have to set up an entirely new trial. That would be a HUGE victory for the defense, but such an outcome is still a long ways off (and unlikely to occur).
This case is a great example of why it's important to have a qualified Minnesota criminal defense attorney that you can trust. If you have been recently charged with a crime, or if you are the subject of a criminal investigation, call or email a Minnesota criminal defense attorney as soon as possible in order to get someone working hard to protect your rights.
As always, no information on the Minnesota Criminal Defense Blog is intended to be construed as legal advice or legal advertising, nor does viewing this website create an attorney/client relationship between the content's author and the reader. If you are in need of legal advice, stop surfing the internet for answers and speak with a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction as soon as possible.
The issue at the crux of this motion was a not found written by the jury that they wished to have read out loud before their final verdict was read in court. The judge decided not to read the note, instead passing it off to the prosecutors and giving it no weight. So, just what did this magic note say that's got everybody so riled up?
"We believe that Mrs. Senser thought she hit a vehicle, not a person."
Oh, boy.
This note brings up a number of different questions, most of which can be answered by examining the jury instructions given to the 12 members before being sequestered. The instructions gave the jurors the duty to convict Mrs. Senser if knew she caused injury, death, or damage to another vehicle. Inexplicably, Nelson did not object to the inclusion of the "damage to another vehicle" section of the instructions. What this means, ultimately, is that the jurors' note doesn't change what their verdict would have been had they believed Senser hit a person.
Nelson really has no one here to blame but himself for this problem. His whole defense strategy revolved around creating the idea that Mrs. Senser thought she hit something other than a person. Ultimately, it worked, but the jury instructions allowed them to convict Senser, anyway.
I think the lack of an on-record objection from Nelson will likely be the downfall of this appeal, but what is clear is that there was confusion among the jurors. If this appeal continues down the line to higher courts, I could see a scenario where it is remanded for a retrial due to this apparent confusion. It's important for jurors to know exactly what they're convicting someone of as opposed to guessing at a moving target.
I doubt this appeals process will end anytime soon. In the meantime, sentencing of Senser can proceed as scheduled. If, by chance, the verdict is overturned, Senser would be released from jail and the prosecution would have to set up an entirely new trial. That would be a HUGE victory for the defense, but such an outcome is still a long ways off (and unlikely to occur).
This case is a great example of why it's important to have a qualified Minnesota criminal defense attorney that you can trust. If you have been recently charged with a crime, or if you are the subject of a criminal investigation, call or email a Minnesota criminal defense attorney as soon as possible in order to get someone working hard to protect your rights.
As always, no information on the Minnesota Criminal Defense Blog is intended to be construed as legal advice or legal advertising, nor does viewing this website create an attorney/client relationship between the content's author and the reader. If you are in need of legal advice, stop surfing the internet for answers and speak with a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction as soon as possible.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Trial of the Week: Minnesota Viking Chris Cook's Felony Domestic Assault Trial
From time to time, I'll be doing a segment here that I call Trial of the Week. Basically, I'll give you a rundown of the trial going on in the state of Minnesota that I find most interesting. I'd like to say I plan on making this a weekly thing, but more likely it will be every month or so. Maybe I should call it Trial of the Month? Whatever.
This week, we'll take a look at the trial of Minnesota Vikings cornerback Chris Cook. Cook was charged with felony domestic assault and 3rd degree assault in conjuction with an alleged incident between Cook and his girlfriend in October of 2011. Cook was put on leave from the team and missed the rest of the season.
Initially, the crux of the case against Cook was the statement given by Cook's girlfriend that the defensive back hit and choked her, leaving her with scratches and bruising around her neck, swelling in her face, and a ruptured eardrum. The injuries allowed prosecutors to charge Cook with the aggravated 3rd degree assault as opposed to a more common 5th degree charge, meaning that both charges he faces can result in more than a year in jail, plus significant fines.
The prosecution had to feel good about this case initially, but those good feelings might be washing away. Not only did Hennepin County prosecutors have the testimony of the girlfriend, Chantel Baker, who claimed that Cook viciously attacked her, but also the forensic evidence to back it up with the bruises, scratches, swelling, and injury to the ear drum.
Recently, Ms. Baker has recanted her original explanation to the police. She now says that Cook never strangled her, and that she only claimed he did because she was mad at him and wanted him to go to jail. She claims to have immediately regretted her lie and felt guilt over her false representations.
Now that Baker's testimony was something of a question mark, the prosecution would have to lean more heavily on the forensic evidence. Unfortunately for them, that evidence took a bit of a hit yesterday, as well. Cook's defense team introduced an expert witness who testified that the marks on Baker's neck were not consistent with injuries one would sustain during an attempted strangulation. The defense's alternate theory of how the marks got on Baker's neck involved her earring leaving the scratches, and the bruising being attributable to hickeys given to her by Cook. This, coupled with Cook's testimony that Baker attacked him first, causing him to hit her in self defense (which is what the defense claims caused the ruptured ear drum), means that all the evidence prosecutors expected to use has a reasonable defense against it.
In order for the felony convictions to stick against Cook, the prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that not only did Cook physically assault Baker, but that his assault is what caused the injuries she sustained. However, if the jury believes Cook's account of the evening, his claim of self defense would act as an affirmative defense to the charges and exonerate him from any legal wrongdoing.
So, what's my take on this? Well, the jury went into deliberation today, so we should hear something final by the end of the week. If I were the prosecutor on this case, I'd offer up a plea of misdemeanor domestic assault and 5th degree assault, no jail time, and in lieu of a fine (which really wouldn't hurt an NFL player anyway) I would propose some amount of community service. I'd be worried that my star witness didn't say what I thought she was going to say. I'd be worried that the defense had a doctor say the injuries weren't consistent with strangulation. Mostly, I'd be worried that a guy who I thought I had dead to rights a few months ago has a good chance to walk away from this unpunished. The jury has been instructed to consider these misdemeanor charges as lesser included charges in case they are not comfortable convicting Cook of the felonies. This is good for the prosecution, because they can still get a conviction even if the jury doesn't buy the entire story.
If I'm the defense team, I'd consider a deal that would avoid a felony and jail time. Cook, as an NFL player, has quite a bit riding on not doing jail time. The NFL will likely suspend him for a couple of games regardless of the outcome of this trial, but by avoiding jail time he can still practice with the team and continue to prepare for the 2012 season. Obviously, if I were Cook's attorney, I'd look for the best deal I can get, but I would probably accept the above deal from the prosecution. Yes, there is a chance that the jury is going to come back with a not guilty verdict, but juries are historically tougher on men accused of harming women than they are in other instances.
At this point, however, it certainly appears that this case will be decided by Cook's peers. My gut tells me that he won't be convicted of the felony charges, but that at least one of the lesser included misdemeanors will stick. Cook won't do any more jail time than the 4 days he did waiting for arraignment. He'll do a little community service, and he'll receive a 4 game suspension from the NFL. All in all, there are just too many things for the jury to question regarding what actually happened that night for them to confidently put a man in jail for the next few years.
Cases like this are always tough to figure out. It's difficult to separate the emotions from the facts, and juries find themselves trying to separate their own preconceived notions from the facts of the case. For Cook, being a big guy (6'2", 215 lbs) doesn't work in his favor, either. Often, when the charge is that a significantly larger man did something physical to a smaller woman, the jury feels an obligation to protect the alleged victim (even though they shouldn't). As a defense attorney, I would try to stress these factors to my client, making him aware of the fact that his actions aren't the only things on trial in a case like this. Cook, while he has a strong case, will do well to avoid jail time. I'm sure his lawyers know that.
Ultimately, this case will hinge on whether the jury believed the testimony Cook gave on Tuesday. When a defendant takes the stand, a lot of the other testimony and evidence gets discounted by the jury. It's the whole "straight from the horses mouthWhen an attorney recommends to his or her client, they have to make sure that their client will be convincing because so much will ride on that testimony. If Cook did as well in the eyes of the jurors as he did in my eyes, he could be seeing a very favorable outcome when the jury ends their deliberation.
If you are in a situation where a criminal trial may be in your future, it's important to get legal representation immediately in order to set up the strongest possible defense. Delaying hiring an attorney only increases the chance of you saying the wrong thing to police, missing out on opportunities to agree to a plea bargain, and decreases the amount of time your lawyer will have to evaluate your case and prepare for court. If you or a loved one have been charged with a crime or fear that you will be, contact a Minnesota criminal defense lawyer today to get the jump on your defense.
As always, information contained in this blog is for entertainment purposes, only, and should not be construed as legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice or representation, contact a Minnesota attorney to receive the specialized guidance you need in your time of trial.
This week, we'll take a look at the trial of Minnesota Vikings cornerback Chris Cook. Cook was charged with felony domestic assault and 3rd degree assault in conjuction with an alleged incident between Cook and his girlfriend in October of 2011. Cook was put on leave from the team and missed the rest of the season.
Initially, the crux of the case against Cook was the statement given by Cook's girlfriend that the defensive back hit and choked her, leaving her with scratches and bruising around her neck, swelling in her face, and a ruptured eardrum. The injuries allowed prosecutors to charge Cook with the aggravated 3rd degree assault as opposed to a more common 5th degree charge, meaning that both charges he faces can result in more than a year in jail, plus significant fines.
The prosecution had to feel good about this case initially, but those good feelings might be washing away. Not only did Hennepin County prosecutors have the testimony of the girlfriend, Chantel Baker, who claimed that Cook viciously attacked her, but also the forensic evidence to back it up with the bruises, scratches, swelling, and injury to the ear drum.
Recently, Ms. Baker has recanted her original explanation to the police. She now says that Cook never strangled her, and that she only claimed he did because she was mad at him and wanted him to go to jail. She claims to have immediately regretted her lie and felt guilt over her false representations.
Now that Baker's testimony was something of a question mark, the prosecution would have to lean more heavily on the forensic evidence. Unfortunately for them, that evidence took a bit of a hit yesterday, as well. Cook's defense team introduced an expert witness who testified that the marks on Baker's neck were not consistent with injuries one would sustain during an attempted strangulation. The defense's alternate theory of how the marks got on Baker's neck involved her earring leaving the scratches, and the bruising being attributable to hickeys given to her by Cook. This, coupled with Cook's testimony that Baker attacked him first, causing him to hit her in self defense (which is what the defense claims caused the ruptured ear drum), means that all the evidence prosecutors expected to use has a reasonable defense against it.
In order for the felony convictions to stick against Cook, the prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that not only did Cook physically assault Baker, but that his assault is what caused the injuries she sustained. However, if the jury believes Cook's account of the evening, his claim of self defense would act as an affirmative defense to the charges and exonerate him from any legal wrongdoing.
So, what's my take on this? Well, the jury went into deliberation today, so we should hear something final by the end of the week. If I were the prosecutor on this case, I'd offer up a plea of misdemeanor domestic assault and 5th degree assault, no jail time, and in lieu of a fine (which really wouldn't hurt an NFL player anyway) I would propose some amount of community service. I'd be worried that my star witness didn't say what I thought she was going to say. I'd be worried that the defense had a doctor say the injuries weren't consistent with strangulation. Mostly, I'd be worried that a guy who I thought I had dead to rights a few months ago has a good chance to walk away from this unpunished. The jury has been instructed to consider these misdemeanor charges as lesser included charges in case they are not comfortable convicting Cook of the felonies. This is good for the prosecution, because they can still get a conviction even if the jury doesn't buy the entire story.
If I'm the defense team, I'd consider a deal that would avoid a felony and jail time. Cook, as an NFL player, has quite a bit riding on not doing jail time. The NFL will likely suspend him for a couple of games regardless of the outcome of this trial, but by avoiding jail time he can still practice with the team and continue to prepare for the 2012 season. Obviously, if I were Cook's attorney, I'd look for the best deal I can get, but I would probably accept the above deal from the prosecution. Yes, there is a chance that the jury is going to come back with a not guilty verdict, but juries are historically tougher on men accused of harming women than they are in other instances.
At this point, however, it certainly appears that this case will be decided by Cook's peers. My gut tells me that he won't be convicted of the felony charges, but that at least one of the lesser included misdemeanors will stick. Cook won't do any more jail time than the 4 days he did waiting for arraignment. He'll do a little community service, and he'll receive a 4 game suspension from the NFL. All in all, there are just too many things for the jury to question regarding what actually happened that night for them to confidently put a man in jail for the next few years.
Cases like this are always tough to figure out. It's difficult to separate the emotions from the facts, and juries find themselves trying to separate their own preconceived notions from the facts of the case. For Cook, being a big guy (6'2", 215 lbs) doesn't work in his favor, either. Often, when the charge is that a significantly larger man did something physical to a smaller woman, the jury feels an obligation to protect the alleged victim (even though they shouldn't). As a defense attorney, I would try to stress these factors to my client, making him aware of the fact that his actions aren't the only things on trial in a case like this. Cook, while he has a strong case, will do well to avoid jail time. I'm sure his lawyers know that.
Ultimately, this case will hinge on whether the jury believed the testimony Cook gave on Tuesday. When a defendant takes the stand, a lot of the other testimony and evidence gets discounted by the jury. It's the whole "straight from the horses mouthWhen an attorney recommends to his or her client, they have to make sure that their client will be convincing because so much will ride on that testimony. If Cook did as well in the eyes of the jurors as he did in my eyes, he could be seeing a very favorable outcome when the jury ends their deliberation.
If you are in a situation where a criminal trial may be in your future, it's important to get legal representation immediately in order to set up the strongest possible defense. Delaying hiring an attorney only increases the chance of you saying the wrong thing to police, missing out on opportunities to agree to a plea bargain, and decreases the amount of time your lawyer will have to evaluate your case and prepare for court. If you or a loved one have been charged with a crime or fear that you will be, contact a Minnesota criminal defense lawyer today to get the jump on your defense.
As always, information contained in this blog is for entertainment purposes, only, and should not be construed as legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice or representation, contact a Minnesota attorney to receive the specialized guidance you need in your time of trial.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)