Articles Posted in Articles of Interest

The Supreme Court recently ruled that a school’s strip search of an Arizona teenage girl accused of having prescription-strength ibuprofen was illegal. In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said school officials violated the law with their search of Savana Redding in the rural eastern Arizona town of Safford.

Redding, who now attends college, was 13 when officials at Safford Middle School ordered her to remove her clothes and shake out her underwear because they were looking for pills — the equivalent of two Advil’s. The district bans prescription and over-the-counter drugs and the school was acting on a tip from another student.

“What was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to Savana was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear,” Justice David Souter wrote in the majority opinion. “We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable.”

Almost everyone has witnessed an automobile accident. Many, unfortunately, have witnessed a domestic dispute, or even a violent criminal act. Regardless of the nature of the incident, people all respond differently under such circumstances. Even if you were not directly confronted during the incident, you may experience reactions from your exposure to the crime or unfortunate accident. How people react to these events varies from person to person and is affected by individual factors such as how you usually handle stressful situations and what kind of support you have. Many under these circumstances do not wish to answer questions, let alone from an authoritative figure such as a police officer. However, police officers owe a duty to protect society by trying to figure out exactly what happened and in most cases to try and find out who is responsible. However, under such challenging circumstances, just what are you required to answer?

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides protection against self-incrimination. This powerful tool prevents an individual from being a witness against him or herself. If you have just committed a crime and/or believe that law enforcement suspects that you may have, you have the right not to answer questions and instead, to ask for your attorney. However, witnesses, unlike suspects, are treated differently. Witnesses are required to answer questions in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings such as grand jury or legislative hearings. Although law enforcement cannot legally force you to answer questions at the scene of the incident, they and/or prosecutors can use an instrument called a “subpoena” which legally requires you to appear in court to answer the questions. Once called into court as simply a witness and not a suspect, you are required by law to answer the questions asked unless you reasonably believe that the questions asked may incriminate you in some way.
Typically, people don’t plan on witnessing an accident and/or a crime. However, if you are placed in such a situation and are able to assist law enforcement without fear for your own safety and/or fear that you might be incriminating yourself, you may want to answer questions. Law enforcement is an important part of our society and without the help of citizens during these events too many crimes would go unsolved. However, if at any time during their questioning you feel even the smallest sense of fear that you are being accused of anything do not hesitate to ask for your attorney. This is your constitutional right. Don’t worry about “looking guilty.” Cops are used to it and your invocation of rights cannot be used against you if you’re ultimately charged with a criminal offense. Just one last word of advice; invoking your right to an attorney does prevent police from asking you any more questions, however, it does not prevent you from affirmatively opening your mouth and talking with them. Anything you say after invoking your right to counsel will be considered a waiver of your rights and the police may again start interrogating.

I hope you’re having a wonderful May. This month’s E-Newsletter focuses on an issue that been all over the news recently. Many want to know whether Bernie Madoff’s family will continue to live the good life now that he has pled guilty. Hopefully this article assists.

Also, check out my new demo reel featuring some of my latest television appearances. See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5HkuxNfyj8&feature=channel_page

As criminal defense attorney’s, we frequently hear the same question: “How can you defend those guilty people?” Erroneously presupposed by those who ask this questions is that all the people that we represent are all guilty. We have different responses when asked this question depending on who asks and how they ask it. Sometimes, I’ll remind and/or inform those people about the instances over the past several years, about which I’ve read where innocent people in the United States have been falsely accused of crimes. Their nightmares serve as, among many other things, reminders of the importance of our role as criminal defense lawyers. I try to share true stories to those who inquire to remind them that people, just like you and I, can have their liberty stripped at any moment even though they have done nothing wrong.

I make sure to remind them about what happened to Wilbert Lee and Freddie Pitts. Thirty six years ago, two gas station attendants were murdered in a segregated town in the Florida Panhandle. Lee and Pitts were arrested and later stood trial for the murders. Feelings against them ran high during their trials. The crucial piece of evidence was that one of their friends had argued with a gas station attendant about using the whites-only bathroom. The all-white jury sent the two black men to Death Row. Their conviction was based largely on the testimony of a witness who was threatened by interrogators and “hypnotized” by prosecutors. They spent 12 years in prison, nine of them on Death Row, before being freed. Another man confessed to the killings.

More recently, there was the arrest in Tampa, Florida of Johnny Golden, who was charged with bank robbery. Even though he had a pay slip showing he had worked for a labor pool in North Carolina the day Tampa police accused him of robbing the bank and had his supervisor and four other people vouch for his alibi, he still was held by authorities who were certain that they had the right man. On December 8, 1997, the day Golden’s trial was to start, the primary witness, a bank teller who was robbed, came into court and took a look at Golden and said that he wasn’t the robber. Prosecutors dropped the charges. Golden spent six months in jail, losing his truck and his home. He also lost spending precious time with his wife and infant son who was 3 months old when he was arrested.

The state of Florida announced recently that it would not seek the death penalty in the highly publicized Orlando murder case against “tot mom” Casey Anthony.

Although the trial is not scheduled to begin for quite some time, the prosecution’s recent decision has left many people unhappy and even angry, including Nancy Grace, who publicly criticized the state for not seeking death. The reasons for the prosecution’s tactics can be and will be debated until the outcome of this case, maybe even longer. However, with such a sensitive subject stirring so much emotion, it begs one to ask the question; why is death different?

The death penalty . . . Is it justice – or legalized murder? Does it prevent crime – or lessen respect for the law? Will it make our towns and cities safer – or more dangerous?

Navy sailor Javier Trevino says he’s always enjoyed a hot cup of tea, but the tea he tried in early July of last year ruined his life.

“It just tasted good. It’s herbal tea. Had a good taste to it, good flavor to it.”

“My whole world came crashing down” he said after drinking an herbal tea called Mate De Coca during the July 4th weekend. According to Trevino he enjoyed the good tasting tea and offered it to his friends and family.

A posh South Florida day spa was put on a year probation for hiring

unlicensed workers and allegations that a woman was sexually assaulted at

the spa.

Six former cheerleaders and the former mascot from Morton Ranch High School made their first court appearances last week on hazing charges based on allegations that they pushed junior varsity cheerleaders, bound and blindfolded, into a swimming pool.

The misdemeanor charges state the defendants engaged in reckless conduct that endangered the mental and physical health and safety of the junior varsity cheerleaders. “We were bound by our shoulders and our wrists and blindfolded. And they started throwing water-balloons, hitting us with noodles, spraying our faces with hairspray. One of the girls was talking — one of the varsity cheerleaders put Silly String in her mouth. And some of the girls started crying. That’s when they stopped everything,” Laura DeLaCruz, 14, said Wednesday.

The incident, alleged to have occurred at a private residence, took place because the junior cheerleader was pledging and being initiated into the varsity squad. The girls, who will be tried as adults, face probation and community service to six months in jail and a $2,000 fine if convicted of the class B misdemeanor charges. The girls were ordered to reappear before state District Judge Larry Standley on Dec. 12 who will ultimately determine the punishment imposed if convicted.

A jury convicted a woman last Wednesday of three minor offenses in her role in an internet cyber-hoax which likely drove a 13-year old girl to suicide. Although originally charged with felony charges of accessing a computed without authorization to inflict emotional distress, the jury found defendant Lori Drew guilty of three lesser counts including accessing a computer without authorization. The parents of 13 year old Megan Meier alleged that their daughter was a victim of cyber-bullying which led her to commit suicide in October of 2006. Megan who sometimes suffered from low self-esteem was befriended on the social network MySpace by a boy who quickly became friends and eventually built a relationship with her over the network. Weeks later, Megan began to receive cruel messages from the boy’s account calling her a slut, fat and telling her that he no longer wanted to be friends. The cyber exchange devastated Megan, who was unable to understand how and why her friendship unraveled. The stress and frustration was too much for Megan, who had a history of depression.

Following her suicide the parents discovered that the boy never existed in the first place and that it was actually a hoax created by a mother, who had learned of the page from her own daughter and was using the fake boy’s profile to monitor their daughter’s activity. However, once accessing the fake account, Lori Drew began harassing and bullying the young girl until she hung herself in her own closet. Each conviction Drew faces could result in as much as one year in prison and a $100,000 fine. Sentencing is likely to be determined by the end of the month. Cyber-bullying is not uncommon among teenagers. In fact, almost one half of teens say they have been a victim at least once. What makes this case so troubling is that the bullying came from an adult and not one of Megan’s peers. The Meier family has since taken up the cause of Internet safety by trying to inform all parents of the dangers of cyber-bullying and pushing for parents to be mindful of their children’s online activities and relationships in the hopes that they can prevent further tragedies.

An 8 year old Arizona boy was charged last week with the premeditated killing of his father and another man.

The news of the shooting became public when the prosecutors released to the news this week an hour long interrogation which led to the boy’s confession. On the video the boy first denies firing the gun which killed both his father, Vincent Romero, 29, and Timothy Romans, 39, a boarder in the Romeros’ two-story home in St. Johns, a rural community outside of Phoenix. However, after an hour of questioning and while on tape, the boy changes his story and admits shooting them twice, saying that they were already wounded before he fired.

Even though now in the public eye, this confession will likely never see the courtroom experts say. Since the confession came while the child was being questioned and occurred before the police ever told the boy of his right to silence and to a lawyer, and because he was interviewed without a parent or a lawyer present, it is likely to be deemed inadmissible. Although the prosecution claims the reason the child was not told of his rights or able to have a parent or lawyer present was because he was not a suspect at the time of questioning, this argument will likely fail. As soon as the questioning revealed he was no longer a victim and might be a suspect that’s where the questioning should have stopped. At this point the boy was likely under a custodial interrogation at which time his constitutional rights were violated and the confession would be inadmissible. The boy is being held in a juvenile detention center, though he is to spend Thanksgiving with his mother on a 48-hour furlough. Police are also pushing for the 8 year old to be tried as an adult; however, most experts would agree that this would be more than extraordinary given the child’s young age and lack of criminal history.