Trial of the Month: Jeffery Trevino Murder Trial

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.

Brooklyn Park Day Care Shooting -- New Developments

I wrote last week about charges being brought against the suspect in the deadly Brooklyn Park day care shooting from early April.  Yesterday, news got out that the reason the suspect, Eddie Mosley, wasn't already in jail for the criminal sexual assault he had recently been charged with was because Wright County (MN) officials decided to simply send him a summons in the mail as opposed to issuing a warrant for his arrest.

As you'll recall from my initial breakdown of the events in question, it was the alleged sexual assault that caused Mosley and a friend to hop in a car and drive from St. Louis, MO to Brooklyn Park in search of the accuser.  Mosley's apparent intent was to murder his 15 year old accuser in an effort to make the charges go away after pleas to the girl's mother (Mosley's half-sister) to convince her daughter to rescind her accusation proved ineffective.

Wright County officials stated that they chose to issue the summons in lieu of the arrest warrant because of the distance between the accused and his accuser.  They felt that the 600 mile buffer, coupled with the fact that the alleged victim was in the care of her mother, provided sufficient protection for the girl.  A prosecutor for the county said that such actions are not uncommon.  This, my friends, is where he's wrong.

Summons are usually only used to notify suspects of charges in minor, non-violent crimes.  When the crime involves an element of violence, such as sexual assault, it is common practice to issue a warrant for the suspect's arrest and file an order for expedition if they live in another state.  This wasn't a traffic violation, shoplifting, or trespassing.  Mosley was accused of raping a 15 year old child.

The penalty for 1st degree sexual assault in Minnesota is not more than 30 years in prison and a $40,000 fine.  The sentencing guidelines suggest a minimum of 144 months in prison, which equals 12 years.  It doesn't take much effort to consider the fact that, facing a penalty as severe as this, a person may do drastic things in order to clear their name.  If someone is depraved and indifferent enough to allegedly commit such an awful crime in the first place, what's to stop them from trying to do something just as depraved and indifferent to cover it up?

I believe that the end result of this will be the dismissal of a number of Wright County (MN) officials, as well as a civil suit against the county for failing to take appropriate measures to protect the well-being of the community.  This isn't something that will go away quietly.  Three innocent people are dead because a dangerous criminal was allowed to come in to court on his own timetable and decided to make a detour on the way.

The worst part of this, in my eyes, is that this incident and the way it was subsequently handled may cause pause in people when considering reporting sexual assaults.  Under-reporting of such crimes is already a problem.  Now, add to the existing issue the fact that the accusers may have to worry about their life if the county they live in decided to simply send a summons to the accused informing him/her of their court date.  The handling of Mosley's sexual assault charge sets a terrible precedent for what is acceptable reactions by court personnel.  It is important that the responsible parties are dealt with swiftly in order to reassure future rape victims that they can safely bring forth their story without the threat of being retaliated against.

If you or a loved one have recently been charged with a crime or are the subject of a criminal investigation, contact a Minnesota criminal defense attorney immediately.  A qualified, dedicated defense attorney can make sure that you do all the right things in your quest to clear your name, and can often help in avoiding charges altogether.  Call or email a Minnesota criminal defense attorney today.

As always, Minnesota Criminal Defense Blog is not intended to be construed as either legal advice or legal advertising, nor does visiting this website create an attorney/client relationship between the author and the reader.  If you are looking for legal advice, my suggestion is to stop surfing the internet for answers and speak with a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

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.

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.

2011's Most Interesting MN Supreme Court Ruling on a Criminal Defense Appeal

One of my favorite things to do when I have a few extra minutes (usually over my morning coffee) is to head over to the MN Supreme Court rulings and read through the recent criminal defense appeals that have gone to a decision.  This is a great way for Minnesota criminal defense attorneys to stay up to date on the ever-changing precedents regarding criminal defense, while at the same time learning some do's and don'ts of representing clients.

My favorite case of the year was the review of a conviction of a Minneapolis man for aiding and abetting first degree premeditated murder for the benefit of a gang.  The case involved a drive by shooting perpetrated allegedly by one gang against another.  The usual appeals were present (insufficient assistance of counsel, statutory bar of conviction, insufficient evidence, etc...), but what made this case so interesting was that the principle party who fired the shots was only convicted of 2nd degree murder, whereas his accomplice was convicted of aiding and abetting first degree murder.  The reasonable assumption is that if the actual murderer was found to have not committed 1st degree murder, his accomplice could therefore not be found to have aided and abetted such a crime.

This was the argument made by the appellant's attorney, citing Minn.Stat. 609.05, claiming that it precluded the appellant's conviction of this specific crime.  Unfortunately, the statute does the exact opposite of that, in that it expressly prohibits such a charge under these circumstances.  The pertinent section reads,

"person liable for the crimes of another may be charged with and convicted of the crime although the person who directly committed it has not been convicted, or has been convicted of some other degree of the crime or of some other crime based on the same act."

Clearly, Minnesota statutory law was in favor of the state in this situation, meaning that the appellant's attorney was likely grasping at straws with this objection.  The eyewitness evidence was pretty overwhelming in this case, and both the appellant and his attorney were likely doing whatever they could think of to get his sentence reduced from life without possibility of release to something involving the possibility of parole.

Other interesting nuggets from this case involve how differently juries and judges can see the same facts.  In the trial for the trigger-man, the defense elected for a bench trial.  The judge in that case concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove premeditation on the part of the shooter, as well as to prove the group he was a member of qualified as a "gang" under the relevant Minnesota statute.  Given the exact same facts (presumably), the jury in the accomplice's trial found sufficient evidence to support both of those claims, making a conviction at the level of 1st degree murder easier to justify.  In cases like this where there is the possibility of a high amount of prejudice against the defendant and a high level of emotion, it would not be unreasonable for the defense to ask for a bench trial as opposed to a jury trial.  Jury's tend to feed off the emotion of the proceedings more than will a judge, who has made impartiality his living.

This case illustrates just how complicated and nuanced criminal cases can be, and how important it is to have a competent criminal defense attorney on your side.  While not every case has the repercussions of a murder trial, there is no such thing as a minor criminal conviction.  Any conviction can cost you privileges, freedom, and the ability to gain employment, so regardless of what crime you are being charged with, be sure to contact a Minnesota criminal defense attorney immediately to set up a plan of action regarding your case.  Doing so could be the difference in guilt or innocence.

If you want to read more MN appellate court rulings, check out http://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/.  Here you can find both Court of Appeals rulings as well as Supreme Court rulings.

Here's hoping everybody has a happy, safe, and crime-free New Year!