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 felonies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label felonies. 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, May 16, 2012
Brooklyn Park Daycare Shooting -- Murder in the 2nd Degree?
So, as most of you have probably heard, there is a suspect in custody for the April 9th shooting of three people at a Brooklyn Park, MN day care. A few emails have been trickling in wondering why the charge was for 2nd degree murder and not 1st degree. I'll go over some of the specifics of the case (they get a bit gruesome, so be forewarned), and then say how I would charge the case if I were the Hennepin County attorney.
This whole incident stems from an accusation of felony sexual assault against the suspect, Eddie Mosley of St. Louis, MO. Mosley allegedly drove to Brooklyn Park from St. Louis with a friend with the intent to seek out his teenage accuser and kill her in an effort to silence her claims. (Editorial note: When your plan for clearing your name from one criminal accusation involves committing another more heinous crime, it's time to reconsider this strategy. Take a few breaths and regroup.) Mosley apparently thought that the girl would be at DeLois Brown's day care center before school, so he went there in search of her. When he arrived, the girl was not at the house. What happened next is still something of a mystery, but Brown and her parents, James and Clover Bolden, were found murdered in an execution-style manner by a neighbor. The three were found dead laying on a bed. Mosley was gone by the time authorities showed up at the scene.
With those essential elements, we can look at how this crime could be charged. In Minnesota, 2nd degree murder is intentional murder without the element of premeditation. The maximum sentence for 2nd degree murder is 40 years, and even though there are three counts against the defendant, the sentence would run concurrent to each other. 1st degree murder in Minnesota is intentional murder with the element of premeditation and carries with it a life sentence. The premeditation is the only element that separates these two crimes. (Note: There is an unintentional murder in the 2nd degree statute in Minnesota as well which has the same punishments, but it doesn't apply to this situation, so let's ignore that for the time being.)
An interesting aspect of the premeditation requirement of 1st degree murder is that it's not necessary for you to have intended to kill the person you actually killed. Minnesota statute 609.185(a)(1) reads:
"(a) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of murder in the first degree and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life: (1) causes the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another;"
In the case of the day care killings, if the police are correct in their assertion that Mosley went to the home with the intent to murder his accuser in another case, that would seem to be sufficient premeditation to warrant a murder 1 charge as opposed to the murder 2 charges currently against him. Mosley may not have intended to kill the people he ended up killing, but if he indeed did intend to kill someone, than he would be guilty of 1st degree murder.
My hunch is that prosecutors in Hennepin County have made the decision that an initial charge of murder in the 2nd degree is more likely to hold up in court while they continue their investigation of the murders. It's entirely possible that Mosley will end up being charged with 3 counts of murder in the 1st (I'd even go so far as to call it likely), but perhaps prosecutors were afraid that an initial charge of the harsher crime would result in the suspect being released for lack of evidence. Since they don't have to include the element of premeditation in their murder 2 charges, it makes it a little easier to charge. As the investigation continues, if the prosecution comes across more evidence that lends itself to premeditation of murder on the part of the defendant, they can bring the harsher charges at that time.
So, while some people may be upset right now that the man who allegedly murdered three innocent people in cold blood is being charged with "only" murder 2, the case is far from over. I'll keep an eye on this case as it goes on and give updates from time to time, especially if any changes in the charges occurs.
If you or a love one have been charged with a crime (any crime, not just murder!) or are the subject of a criminal investigation, you need the assistance of a qualified Minnesota criminal defense attorney. Don't wait for the police to come to your door with handcuffs to call a lawyer. Speak with one today in order to increase your chances of success in defending your innocence.
As always, none of the material on Minnesota Criminal Defense Blog is intended as legal advice or legal advertising, nor does viewing this website create an attorney/client relationship between the author and the reader. If you are in need of criminal defense advice, stop surfing the internet and speak to a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.
This whole incident stems from an accusation of felony sexual assault against the suspect, Eddie Mosley of St. Louis, MO. Mosley allegedly drove to Brooklyn Park from St. Louis with a friend with the intent to seek out his teenage accuser and kill her in an effort to silence her claims. (Editorial note: When your plan for clearing your name from one criminal accusation involves committing another more heinous crime, it's time to reconsider this strategy. Take a few breaths and regroup.) Mosley apparently thought that the girl would be at DeLois Brown's day care center before school, so he went there in search of her. When he arrived, the girl was not at the house. What happened next is still something of a mystery, but Brown and her parents, James and Clover Bolden, were found murdered in an execution-style manner by a neighbor. The three were found dead laying on a bed. Mosley was gone by the time authorities showed up at the scene.
With those essential elements, we can look at how this crime could be charged. In Minnesota, 2nd degree murder is intentional murder without the element of premeditation. The maximum sentence for 2nd degree murder is 40 years, and even though there are three counts against the defendant, the sentence would run concurrent to each other. 1st degree murder in Minnesota is intentional murder with the element of premeditation and carries with it a life sentence. The premeditation is the only element that separates these two crimes. (Note: There is an unintentional murder in the 2nd degree statute in Minnesota as well which has the same punishments, but it doesn't apply to this situation, so let's ignore that for the time being.)
An interesting aspect of the premeditation requirement of 1st degree murder is that it's not necessary for you to have intended to kill the person you actually killed. Minnesota statute 609.185(a)(1) reads:
"(a) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of murder in the first degree and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life: (1) causes the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another;"
In the case of the day care killings, if the police are correct in their assertion that Mosley went to the home with the intent to murder his accuser in another case, that would seem to be sufficient premeditation to warrant a murder 1 charge as opposed to the murder 2 charges currently against him. Mosley may not have intended to kill the people he ended up killing, but if he indeed did intend to kill someone, than he would be guilty of 1st degree murder.
My hunch is that prosecutors in Hennepin County have made the decision that an initial charge of murder in the 2nd degree is more likely to hold up in court while they continue their investigation of the murders. It's entirely possible that Mosley will end up being charged with 3 counts of murder in the 1st (I'd even go so far as to call it likely), but perhaps prosecutors were afraid that an initial charge of the harsher crime would result in the suspect being released for lack of evidence. Since they don't have to include the element of premeditation in their murder 2 charges, it makes it a little easier to charge. As the investigation continues, if the prosecution comes across more evidence that lends itself to premeditation of murder on the part of the defendant, they can bring the harsher charges at that time.
So, while some people may be upset right now that the man who allegedly murdered three innocent people in cold blood is being charged with "only" murder 2, the case is far from over. I'll keep an eye on this case as it goes on and give updates from time to time, especially if any changes in the charges occurs.
If you or a love one have been charged with a crime (any crime, not just murder!) or are the subject of a criminal investigation, you need the assistance of a qualified Minnesota criminal defense attorney. Don't wait for the police to come to your door with handcuffs to call a lawyer. Speak with one today in order to increase your chances of success in defending your innocence.
As always, none of the material on Minnesota Criminal Defense Blog is intended as legal advice or legal advertising, nor does viewing this website create an attorney/client relationship between the author and the reader. If you are in need of criminal defense advice, stop surfing the internet and speak to a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Amy Senser Trial Update: Amy to Take the Stand
After a weekend of recess from court for Amy Senser, the defendant in Minnesota's most high-profile criminal trial, Senser herself will take the stand today in her own defense. This move, while not necessarily surprising, will probably be the "make or break" moment in this trial.
Again, Senser is faced with three felony charges stemming from an incident on the Riverside ramp off of I-94. One is for leaving the scene, one is for failure to call for help immediately, and one is for gross negligent operation of a vehicle. The first two crimes require the suspect to know that their accident could have reasonably resulted in severe bodily harm or death or another person, whereas the negligence charge does not. However, for Senser to be found guilty of grossly negligent driving, the prosecution will have to show that her driving would "shock the conscience." This will be a difficult standard to meet, seeing as there were no witnesses of the accident. The prosecution did introduce testimony from someone who was trailing Senser on I-94 a few miles before the accident, but ultimately, Senser's testimony will have more to do with this charge than any other evidence.
Senser's testimony will be important because this entire case is based on what she did or didn't know. If the prosecution can get her to slip up during cross-examination, it could mean a victory for Hennepin County. Senser essentially has to take the stand in order for her defense (didn't know she hit someone) to even be entered into evidence. There will be some interesting things to keep an eye on today:
1. Will the prosecution grill her about her drinking the evening of the accident?
One of the big question marks in this case is whether alcohol was a factor in this deadly accident. If the prosecution can get Senser to admit to having a few drinks on the night in question, it will turn this into a nearly impossible conviction into essentially a slam dunk. Don't expect this to be the case, however. Defense attorney Eric Nelson wouldn't be putting Senser on the stand if she was going to admit to consuming alcohol that night. She will deny drinking, but how convincing will she be?
2. How will Amy Senser do when questioned about "getting lost?"
For a person living in Edina who is supposed to be on their way to downtown St. Paul, going west on I-94 in downtown Minneapolis wouldn't be the most efficient path. Senser explains her unusual route by claiming that she was lost on her way to the Xcel Center and was trying to find her way back onto eastbound I-94. Senser has lived in the metro for years, so getting lost on the Twin Cities' main drag is a bit surprising. Her husband, former Viking tight end Joe Senser, already testified that such an event was not out of character for her, but it was hard to tell if he was referring to her actually getting lost or her claiming that she'd gotten lost. How Senser holds up when pressured on the timeline of that evening will go a long ways towards determining the outcome of this case.
3. Will Senser be "believable" with her testimony?
So much attention gets put on what people say as opposed to how they say it. The true test of any witness is whether they can get the jury to buy into their story. Senser's biggest challenge will be to keep her story consistent, stay even-keeled, and to avoid embellishing on the questions asked of her. The worst thing a defendant on the stand can do is answer more than the questions asked. This is probably the biggest benefit to hiring a Minnesota criminal defense attorney when facing criminal charges of this nature. A good lawyer will prepare you for what you can expect while you're on the stand and can get you ready to be successful when the questions get intense.
Monday is sure to be an exciting day in the Amy Senser criminal vehicular homicide trial. We should know a lot more about her chances of earning an acquittal after she steps down either today or tomorrow. If you've got any questions regarding the case, you can leave them in the comments section or you can shoot me a line via email. I can't promise I'll be able to respond to every email or comment, but I'll surely do my best.
If you or a love one are dealing with criminal charges or are the subject of a criminal investigation, don't wait too long to speak with a Minnesota criminal defense attorney. Minnesota criminal defense attorneys can help you get your defense on the right track from the start so you have the best chance to be successful.
As always, all material on Minnesota Criminal Defense Blog is intended to be for entertainment purposes, only. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice or legal advertising, nor does viewing this website create an attorney/client relationship between the author and the reader. If you are seeking legal advice, contact a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction to get the specialized legal service you require.
Again, Senser is faced with three felony charges stemming from an incident on the Riverside ramp off of I-94. One is for leaving the scene, one is for failure to call for help immediately, and one is for gross negligent operation of a vehicle. The first two crimes require the suspect to know that their accident could have reasonably resulted in severe bodily harm or death or another person, whereas the negligence charge does not. However, for Senser to be found guilty of grossly negligent driving, the prosecution will have to show that her driving would "shock the conscience." This will be a difficult standard to meet, seeing as there were no witnesses of the accident. The prosecution did introduce testimony from someone who was trailing Senser on I-94 a few miles before the accident, but ultimately, Senser's testimony will have more to do with this charge than any other evidence.
Senser's testimony will be important because this entire case is based on what she did or didn't know. If the prosecution can get her to slip up during cross-examination, it could mean a victory for Hennepin County. Senser essentially has to take the stand in order for her defense (didn't know she hit someone) to even be entered into evidence. There will be some interesting things to keep an eye on today:
1. Will the prosecution grill her about her drinking the evening of the accident?
One of the big question marks in this case is whether alcohol was a factor in this deadly accident. If the prosecution can get Senser to admit to having a few drinks on the night in question, it will turn this into a nearly impossible conviction into essentially a slam dunk. Don't expect this to be the case, however. Defense attorney Eric Nelson wouldn't be putting Senser on the stand if she was going to admit to consuming alcohol that night. She will deny drinking, but how convincing will she be?
2. How will Amy Senser do when questioned about "getting lost?"
For a person living in Edina who is supposed to be on their way to downtown St. Paul, going west on I-94 in downtown Minneapolis wouldn't be the most efficient path. Senser explains her unusual route by claiming that she was lost on her way to the Xcel Center and was trying to find her way back onto eastbound I-94. Senser has lived in the metro for years, so getting lost on the Twin Cities' main drag is a bit surprising. Her husband, former Viking tight end Joe Senser, already testified that such an event was not out of character for her, but it was hard to tell if he was referring to her actually getting lost or her claiming that she'd gotten lost. How Senser holds up when pressured on the timeline of that evening will go a long ways towards determining the outcome of this case.
3. Will Senser be "believable" with her testimony?
So much attention gets put on what people say as opposed to how they say it. The true test of any witness is whether they can get the jury to buy into their story. Senser's biggest challenge will be to keep her story consistent, stay even-keeled, and to avoid embellishing on the questions asked of her. The worst thing a defendant on the stand can do is answer more than the questions asked. This is probably the biggest benefit to hiring a Minnesota criminal defense attorney when facing criminal charges of this nature. A good lawyer will prepare you for what you can expect while you're on the stand and can get you ready to be successful when the questions get intense.
Monday is sure to be an exciting day in the Amy Senser criminal vehicular homicide trial. We should know a lot more about her chances of earning an acquittal after she steps down either today or tomorrow. If you've got any questions regarding the case, you can leave them in the comments section or you can shoot me a line via email. I can't promise I'll be able to respond to every email or comment, but I'll surely do my best.
If you or a love one are dealing with criminal charges or are the subject of a criminal investigation, don't wait too long to speak with a Minnesota criminal defense attorney. Minnesota criminal defense attorneys can help you get your defense on the right track from the start so you have the best chance to be successful.
As always, all material on Minnesota Criminal Defense Blog is intended to be for entertainment purposes, only. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice or legal advertising, nor does viewing this website create an attorney/client relationship between the author and the reader. If you are seeking legal advice, contact a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction to get the specialized legal service you require.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Amy Senser Trial Continues...
Since writing about Amy Senser's trial before it began last week, I've been getting a few emails from people with questions regarding the actual trial itself. I thought I would touch on a few of these quickly today before sending out the final installment of the "Know Your Rights" series tomorrow.
Again, my opinion on this trial is just that; opinion. I have no inside information about the case. I do not know Eric Nelson (Senser's defense attorney), nor do I know the prosecutors on the case. I'm simply looking at this from the point of view of a Minnesota criminal defense attorney and opining on it as I see fit.
I've been getting emails for the past 2 days regarding the strategy behind Joe Senser's testimony. A few people have noted to me that his testimony seems to be against his wife as opposed to in favor of her. I'm not so sure this is the truth. Some of his testimony this morning (4/26) may seem a bit peculiar, but it appears to be very carefully crafted, to me. He testified that his wife is "fiercely independent" and that it was not uncommon for her to get lost/flake out/do her own thing. This sounds like he's ripping on his wife, but what he's really doing is helping her to make the case that she just didn't know what had happened. If she's a cold, calculating, reliable person, it makes it harder for the defense to suggest that she simply didn't know that she hit a person with her vehicle that night. By painting her as an aloof, self-serving, flaky person, the defense can more easily make the claim that she didn't have actual knowledge that what she hit was a person, nor would she have considered stopping to investigate. Remember, the issue at trial isn't whether she hit the victim. The issue is whether she knew she hit the victim. Joe Senser's testimony isn't going to do his wife any favors in regard to the negligence charge against her (inattentiveness is not a defense to negligence), but it will help her in the charges against her regarding leaving the scene of an accident which she knowingly may have resulted in significant bodily harm or death to another person.
Joe Senser's Wednesday testimony did even more to help her wife, despite his claim that he "knew" that she had hit more than a traffic barrel. Joe Senser's understanding of the situation is, again, not what is at issue. His testimony furthered the theory that Amy Senser was adamant that she couldn't have struck a person. She was steadfast in her claims to her husband that she hit construction equipment, even after seeing a report on television of the deadly accident. His skepticism aside, his recounting of her reaction to the incident lends to the defense's case. So, while Joe Senser's testimony may not shine the most flattering light on his wife's personality, it has gone a long way towards helping Amy Senser and her attorney poke holes in the prosecution's case.
The most difficult thing for any prosecutor to prove is the intent/knowledge of a defendant. It's not always that difficult to prove that a certain event occurred, but a major element of nearly every criminal charge is mens rea, which is Latin for "guilty mind." In the Amy Senser trial, the mens rea necessary to prove is that Mrs. Senser knew she hit a person and made a conscious decision to leave the scene and continue driving. The strategy of the prosecution has been to use circumstantial evidence to piece together the events of the evening and make an appeal to the jury to put themselves in Amy Senser's shoes. Basically, they want the jury to ask themselves "If I was driving 50 mph and struck a person, wouldn't I know that I did it?" The psychology behind this is that people (in general) like to rate themselves against others. If you can get them to put themselves in the shoes of Amy Senser, they're going to want to believe they would have acted properly in this situation. You want them to think "I would have stopped," or "I wouldn't have hit the person in the first place." If the prosecution can accomplish this goal, they greatly increase their chances of getting a guilty verdict.
With the trial winding down, I suppose it's time to offer up my opinion on how things will end. I believe that it's going to be difficult for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Amy Senser left the scene of an accident that she knew resulted in the severe bodily harm or death to another person. I think the circumstantial evidence is impressive, but ultimately, circumstantial evidence doesn't usually win trials. Without a witness who can testify to her knowledge, all the prosecution has is circumstantial evidence. The appearance of the vehicle, the missing text messages, the failure to pick up her daughter, and her erratic behavior following the incident likely won't be enough to slam the door on this case. I think Mrs. Senser is acquitted of all three felony charges against her. If she is convicted of anything, it will be the gross negligence charge. Negligence is always an easier charge to get to stick because it is so all-encompassing. I think the task in front of the prosecutors is just a little too daunting. I believe their strategy has been sound throughout, but I feel like this specific charge is extremely difficult to prove.
Amy Senser isn't the only person in this state facing criminal charges. If you or a loved one have been charged or may soon be charged with a misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or felony charge, do what Amy Senser did and call or email a Minnesota criminal defense attorney to get someone on your side.
As always, content on the Minnesota Criminal Defense Blog is not intended to be viewed as legal advice or legal advertising. Use of this website does not create an attorney/client privilege between the author and the reader. If you are in need of legal advice, call or email a Minnesota criminal law attorney to get personalized advice tailored to your exact situation.
Again, my opinion on this trial is just that; opinion. I have no inside information about the case. I do not know Eric Nelson (Senser's defense attorney), nor do I know the prosecutors on the case. I'm simply looking at this from the point of view of a Minnesota criminal defense attorney and opining on it as I see fit.
I've been getting emails for the past 2 days regarding the strategy behind Joe Senser's testimony. A few people have noted to me that his testimony seems to be against his wife as opposed to in favor of her. I'm not so sure this is the truth. Some of his testimony this morning (4/26) may seem a bit peculiar, but it appears to be very carefully crafted, to me. He testified that his wife is "fiercely independent" and that it was not uncommon for her to get lost/flake out/do her own thing. This sounds like he's ripping on his wife, but what he's really doing is helping her to make the case that she just didn't know what had happened. If she's a cold, calculating, reliable person, it makes it harder for the defense to suggest that she simply didn't know that she hit a person with her vehicle that night. By painting her as an aloof, self-serving, flaky person, the defense can more easily make the claim that she didn't have actual knowledge that what she hit was a person, nor would she have considered stopping to investigate. Remember, the issue at trial isn't whether she hit the victim. The issue is whether she knew she hit the victim. Joe Senser's testimony isn't going to do his wife any favors in regard to the negligence charge against her (inattentiveness is not a defense to negligence), but it will help her in the charges against her regarding leaving the scene of an accident which she knowingly may have resulted in significant bodily harm or death to another person.
Joe Senser's Wednesday testimony did even more to help her wife, despite his claim that he "knew" that she had hit more than a traffic barrel. Joe Senser's understanding of the situation is, again, not what is at issue. His testimony furthered the theory that Amy Senser was adamant that she couldn't have struck a person. She was steadfast in her claims to her husband that she hit construction equipment, even after seeing a report on television of the deadly accident. His skepticism aside, his recounting of her reaction to the incident lends to the defense's case. So, while Joe Senser's testimony may not shine the most flattering light on his wife's personality, it has gone a long way towards helping Amy Senser and her attorney poke holes in the prosecution's case.
The most difficult thing for any prosecutor to prove is the intent/knowledge of a defendant. It's not always that difficult to prove that a certain event occurred, but a major element of nearly every criminal charge is mens rea, which is Latin for "guilty mind." In the Amy Senser trial, the mens rea necessary to prove is that Mrs. Senser knew she hit a person and made a conscious decision to leave the scene and continue driving. The strategy of the prosecution has been to use circumstantial evidence to piece together the events of the evening and make an appeal to the jury to put themselves in Amy Senser's shoes. Basically, they want the jury to ask themselves "If I was driving 50 mph and struck a person, wouldn't I know that I did it?" The psychology behind this is that people (in general) like to rate themselves against others. If you can get them to put themselves in the shoes of Amy Senser, they're going to want to believe they would have acted properly in this situation. You want them to think "I would have stopped," or "I wouldn't have hit the person in the first place." If the prosecution can accomplish this goal, they greatly increase their chances of getting a guilty verdict.
With the trial winding down, I suppose it's time to offer up my opinion on how things will end. I believe that it's going to be difficult for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Amy Senser left the scene of an accident that she knew resulted in the severe bodily harm or death to another person. I think the circumstantial evidence is impressive, but ultimately, circumstantial evidence doesn't usually win trials. Without a witness who can testify to her knowledge, all the prosecution has is circumstantial evidence. The appearance of the vehicle, the missing text messages, the failure to pick up her daughter, and her erratic behavior following the incident likely won't be enough to slam the door on this case. I think Mrs. Senser is acquitted of all three felony charges against her. If she is convicted of anything, it will be the gross negligence charge. Negligence is always an easier charge to get to stick because it is so all-encompassing. I think the task in front of the prosecutors is just a little too daunting. I believe their strategy has been sound throughout, but I feel like this specific charge is extremely difficult to prove.
Amy Senser isn't the only person in this state facing criminal charges. If you or a loved one have been charged or may soon be charged with a misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or felony charge, do what Amy Senser did and call or email a Minnesota criminal defense attorney to get someone on your side.
As always, content on the Minnesota Criminal Defense Blog is not intended to be viewed as legal advice or legal advertising. Use of this website does not create an attorney/client privilege between the author and the reader. If you are in need of legal advice, call or email a Minnesota criminal law attorney to get personalized advice tailored to your exact situation.
Friday, April 20, 2012
Amy Senser Trial Update
We'll take a break this week from the series on your rights, finishing that up next week with your rights when police stop you while on foot in public. In the mean time, I want to take a quick peak at the Amy Senser trial in Hennepin County in light of the flurry of activity with that case in the past couple days.
I had an article almost completed yesterday on the surprising ruling by the judge in the case that would have allowed the prosecution to use Senser's unwillingness to speak with investigators against her in trial. It was a very odd ruling and was against most precedent on the subject. The 5th Amendment of the Constitution protects us from self-incrimination. It gives us the right to decline to speak with law enforcement officials in order to protect our interests. However, as I was about to start writing my final paragraph, I took a quick constitutional over to the Star Tribune's website, only to see that the judge had reversed his ruling and had allowed the motion by the defense to preclude the prosecution from using Senser's silence against her. As an advocate of justice, I was pleased. As a writer who had spent the better portion of my morning researching the precedent behind the ruling and the consequences of such a decision, I was a little bitter that my hard work was for naught. Either way, Thursday was an important day in the Amy Senser trial. Here are a few of the big decisions made by the judge regarding motions made by both the defense and the prosecution. I won't go through all 16 of them, just three that I found particularly important.
1. The defense's motion to disallow the prosecution from using Amy Senser's silence as incriminating evidence was ultimately upheld. What this means is that the old adage of "what you say can and will be used against you in a court of law" doesn't hold up to what you don't say. This isn't anything new. Any attorney worth his or her salt would have instructed Mrs. Senser to refrain from contact with investigators. This was a case in which there is a dearth of concrete evidence. There is a lot of circumstantial stuff that points to Mrs. Senser's guilt, but without her statements to bind everything together, I think it's going to be very difficult for the prosecution to prove that she knew she hit Mr. Phanthavong. Her knowledge of having hit a person is necessary to create the duty for her to stop and attend to the victim. By not allowing into evidence the fact that Mrs. Senser didn't speak with investigators, it takes away the theory that her silence has been intended to hide something. This is important for the defense in a case that will be built so much around what the prosecution can prove, not what the defense can disprove. I think the judge's reconsideration of this motion was clearly the correct ruling. It's good that he was able to realize his mistake before this went to trial. Such an error would have given the defense a clear issue to appeal upon a guilty plea. Kudos to the judge for doing the right thing and reversing his initial decision.
2. A motion to prevent the defense from introducing evidence that Mr. Phanthavong had a large amount of cocaine in his system at the time of his death was upheld. This isn't a surprising ruling. Such evidence would be more useful to the defense in a civil trial, where they could argue that the victim was guilty of contributory negligence, which would lessen the culpability of Mrs. Senser. In a criminal case, however, such evidence would clearly be prejudice against the prosecution. Whether Mr. Phanthavong had cocaine in his system does not change the alleged actions of Mrs. Senser. If she indeed knew that she hit a person on that night, the condition of the person has nothing to do with her decision to flee the scene. The only purpose for such evidence would be to prove that the accident itself was not the fault of Mrs. Senser, but since that fact isn't at issue in this trial, the prejudicial effect of such evidence outweighs its exculpatory elements.
3. Judge Mabley has agreed to allow the prosecution to show video clips of vehicle-pedestrian accident recreations. Not having seen the actual video, I can't comment on its content. I can say, however, that recreation videos like this are typically the bane of defense attorneys' existence. They tend to be incredibly prejudicial towards the defense and paint the picture the prosecution wants painted. Senser's attorney, Eric Nelson, has said that he feels the clips do not accurately depict the crash scene. The prosecution, on the other hand, says that the videos are intended only to bolster the credibility of a specific expert witness they plan to call and that it should be viewed by the jury in that limited scope. I understand the point made here by the prosecution, but I can assure you that it is nearly impossible to tell something to the jury but inform them only to consider it through a limited lens. Once the jury learns something, it colors the way they think about the case in its entirety. However, I assume that Judge Mabley took into consideration any prejudicial affect these videos could have and weighed that against their necessity. I will say that this is something to keep an eye on during the trial.
There were numerous other motions ruled on by Judge Mabley, but most of them were either pretty straight-forward or inconsequential. This thing is close to getting very interesting, however, as the trial won't be too much farther down the road. I'll keep adding commentary to the proceedings as it moves along, as this case interests me greatly. As a defense attorney, it's always useful to get a high-profile case to follow in order to get some insight into how other lawyers handle certain situations. In our profession, you either continue to learn new techniques or you become obsolete. I'm excited to see how everything plays out in this trial.
If you or a loved one find yourself in the middle of a criminal investigation, you should follow Amy Senser's lead and contact a Minnesota criminal defense attorney before you offer any information to law enforcement. Doing so could be the difference between innocence and guilt.
As always, the contents of this blog are not intended to be legal advertising, legal advice, nor does the reading of this information create an attorney/client relationship between yourself and the author. If you are in need of legal advice, stop browsing the internet for information and get on the phone with a qualified Minnesota criminal defense attorney. Your situation is unique and you should treat it as the serious threat to your liberty that it is.
I had an article almost completed yesterday on the surprising ruling by the judge in the case that would have allowed the prosecution to use Senser's unwillingness to speak with investigators against her in trial. It was a very odd ruling and was against most precedent on the subject. The 5th Amendment of the Constitution protects us from self-incrimination. It gives us the right to decline to speak with law enforcement officials in order to protect our interests. However, as I was about to start writing my final paragraph, I took a quick constitutional over to the Star Tribune's website, only to see that the judge had reversed his ruling and had allowed the motion by the defense to preclude the prosecution from using Senser's silence against her. As an advocate of justice, I was pleased. As a writer who had spent the better portion of my morning researching the precedent behind the ruling and the consequences of such a decision, I was a little bitter that my hard work was for naught. Either way, Thursday was an important day in the Amy Senser trial. Here are a few of the big decisions made by the judge regarding motions made by both the defense and the prosecution. I won't go through all 16 of them, just three that I found particularly important.
1. The defense's motion to disallow the prosecution from using Amy Senser's silence as incriminating evidence was ultimately upheld. What this means is that the old adage of "what you say can and will be used against you in a court of law" doesn't hold up to what you don't say. This isn't anything new. Any attorney worth his or her salt would have instructed Mrs. Senser to refrain from contact with investigators. This was a case in which there is a dearth of concrete evidence. There is a lot of circumstantial stuff that points to Mrs. Senser's guilt, but without her statements to bind everything together, I think it's going to be very difficult for the prosecution to prove that she knew she hit Mr. Phanthavong. Her knowledge of having hit a person is necessary to create the duty for her to stop and attend to the victim. By not allowing into evidence the fact that Mrs. Senser didn't speak with investigators, it takes away the theory that her silence has been intended to hide something. This is important for the defense in a case that will be built so much around what the prosecution can prove, not what the defense can disprove. I think the judge's reconsideration of this motion was clearly the correct ruling. It's good that he was able to realize his mistake before this went to trial. Such an error would have given the defense a clear issue to appeal upon a guilty plea. Kudos to the judge for doing the right thing and reversing his initial decision.
2. A motion to prevent the defense from introducing evidence that Mr. Phanthavong had a large amount of cocaine in his system at the time of his death was upheld. This isn't a surprising ruling. Such evidence would be more useful to the defense in a civil trial, where they could argue that the victim was guilty of contributory negligence, which would lessen the culpability of Mrs. Senser. In a criminal case, however, such evidence would clearly be prejudice against the prosecution. Whether Mr. Phanthavong had cocaine in his system does not change the alleged actions of Mrs. Senser. If she indeed knew that she hit a person on that night, the condition of the person has nothing to do with her decision to flee the scene. The only purpose for such evidence would be to prove that the accident itself was not the fault of Mrs. Senser, but since that fact isn't at issue in this trial, the prejudicial effect of such evidence outweighs its exculpatory elements.
3. Judge Mabley has agreed to allow the prosecution to show video clips of vehicle-pedestrian accident recreations. Not having seen the actual video, I can't comment on its content. I can say, however, that recreation videos like this are typically the bane of defense attorneys' existence. They tend to be incredibly prejudicial towards the defense and paint the picture the prosecution wants painted. Senser's attorney, Eric Nelson, has said that he feels the clips do not accurately depict the crash scene. The prosecution, on the other hand, says that the videos are intended only to bolster the credibility of a specific expert witness they plan to call and that it should be viewed by the jury in that limited scope. I understand the point made here by the prosecution, but I can assure you that it is nearly impossible to tell something to the jury but inform them only to consider it through a limited lens. Once the jury learns something, it colors the way they think about the case in its entirety. However, I assume that Judge Mabley took into consideration any prejudicial affect these videos could have and weighed that against their necessity. I will say that this is something to keep an eye on during the trial.
There were numerous other motions ruled on by Judge Mabley, but most of them were either pretty straight-forward or inconsequential. This thing is close to getting very interesting, however, as the trial won't be too much farther down the road. I'll keep adding commentary to the proceedings as it moves along, as this case interests me greatly. As a defense attorney, it's always useful to get a high-profile case to follow in order to get some insight into how other lawyers handle certain situations. In our profession, you either continue to learn new techniques or you become obsolete. I'm excited to see how everything plays out in this trial.
If you or a loved one find yourself in the middle of a criminal investigation, you should follow Amy Senser's lead and contact a Minnesota criminal defense attorney before you offer any information to law enforcement. Doing so could be the difference between innocence and guilt.
As always, the contents of this blog are not intended to be legal advertising, legal advice, nor does the reading of this information create an attorney/client relationship between yourself and the author. If you are in need of legal advice, stop browsing the internet for information and get on the phone with a qualified Minnesota criminal defense attorney. Your situation is unique and you should treat it as the serious threat to your liberty that it is.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)