Miranda: What’s It All About?

Comments Off

Posted on 8th March 2010 by Mark Owens in news

, , , , , , ,

You’ve heard them before. “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” Some individuals think that a police officer is required to provide every citizen whom they stop or with whom they speak their Miranda statements. However, that is not accurate. The Supreme Court has explained who needs to be informed of these rights and when.

While, Miranda statements are derived from the famous Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona, the rights do not have their beginnings in that case. Rather, the protections that we refer to as the Miranda rights are constitutional freedoms which the court determined needed to be provided to certain people in state custody.

The specific constitutional rights that are usually described as the Miranda rights include the right to remain silent, the right against self incrimination and the right to an attorney during questioning and in court. The court also required that the warnings contain at least the same level of specificity as it set out in its ruling and that the warnings be meaningful for the stopped individuals.

Many courts add additional warnings to the typical Miranda statements that they think are important for the people in their jurisdictions. For example, some border states require law enforcement to tell detainees that if they are not U.S. citizens that they have the right to contact their country’s consulate.

The Miranda limitations need to be spoken by a police officer to an individual who is a criminal suspect and in police custody before they begin to question the individual about the circumstances surrounding the crime. The person is considered to be in law enforcement custody if a reasonable individual would believe that his or her freedom to leave is restrained, regardless of whether the officers have formerly arrested the person.

To make incriminating evidence admissible at trial, officials need to provide the individual with his or her Miranda warnings prior to obtaining the evidence. A man who is in police custody must be informed of their rights prior to any police questioning. If the individual is arrested and the officers do not intend to question the person then the Miranda rights do not have to be given.

If you have been charged with a violent or marijuana crime in Freehold New Jersey, do not speak to the police. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. Talk with a local Freehold New Jersey criminal lawyer.

Don’t Answer That Phone, You’re Driving In BC

Comments Off

Posted on 11th February 2010 by Jon Dykstra in Politics

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As of January 1 this year in BC it’s a mass return to listening to our radio stations in our cars.

In BC we now have to let our cell phones ring through to voice mail while driving; our government passed a law saying we can’t use hand-held devices while operating a motor vehicle.

Our kindly police officers have said they’ll give us all a break and won’t give out pricey tickets until February 1, 2010. It appears we have a “cooling off” period in BC.

In case you’re wondering, the law in BC applies to hand-held devices, not hands-free devices. This mean you can drive and talk as long as the device you’re talking into is not in your hand.

Don’t take this law lightly. It’s easy for officers to spot hand-held use and fine is an expensive $167. Surely a chat while you drive is not worth $167.

If you have a learners or a novice licence, you’re really stuck without a chatting option. The new law mandates that both hand-held and hands-free devices are denied to you.

For some of you who don’t understand why our government would pass a law, consider looking into some of the statistics about cell phone use and texting while driving. The numbers are pretty staggering; many, many, many people have been maimed, killed, and badly hurt in horrific car accidents caused by distracted drivers using their cell phones.

Our government last fall was persuaded that the number of accidents, many of which were catastrophic, caused by negligent driving as a result of using some device was simply too high to let our distracted, but not-bored driving lifestyle continue.

So while we’ve been planning for a January 1, 2010 start to silent driving, or at least returning to our satellite radio players, we have until February 1, 2010 until we’ll see the red and blue lights for chatting on the phone.

With mobile phones practically becoming the new personal computer, this type of law will probably get drivers to again focus on driving rather than working and being entertained.

Looking for a British Columbia car accident lawyer, then visit Dykstra & Company to get information on your ICBC claim.

Refusing Breath Test In New Jersey May Have Sentencing Implication

Comments Off

Posted on 25th January 2010 by Mark Owens in Politics

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Recently, the New Jersey Appellate Courts ruled on an issue that had long gone the other way. The question raised was whether a prior breath test refusal can be counted as an offense in considering the sentence for a subsequent DWI conviction.

The lower court had not taken into account a prior conviction, as well as, a prior breath test refusal based on a precedent that had been established in New Jersey almost thirty years earlier. Therefore, the lower court sentenced the defendant as a first-time offender and discounted both of the earlier offenses in handing down a sentence.

On Appeal, the Court sided with the state’s arguments. Instead of being sentenced as a first time violator, the Court of Appeals concluded that the defendant’s prior breath test refusal should not have been given any different consideration than if the defendant had been convicted of DWI. In other words, the refusal should have been counted as a violation for purposes of determining proper sentencing. It is worth noting that this is a fairly significant change to the interpretation of the DWI sentencing statute in New Jersey.

In a nutshell, the Court concluded that the statute doesn’t make an express distinction between a prior DWI conviction and a prior refusal. Therefore, the Court was not willing to “read in” a distinction despite the prior precedent to the contrary. The Court focused on the key language including the terms “violation” and “offense” as opposed to violations under this section, which is not included in the statute.

With this ruling, individuals that are arrested for DWI in New Jersey need to be aware of the potential consequences. Refusal of a breath test may be used to determine which sentencing rule is used in your case. This is yet another example of why talking to a criminal defense lawyer first, is critical to making the right decision.

In New Jersey, drunk driving and refusal carry some of the nation’s toughest penalties. If you are convicted, you may lose your license, face stiff penalties and even go to jail. Call an seasoned new jersey dui lawyer today. Contact our office online today. Our New Jersey dui lawyer will do everything he can.

Judge’s Examination of Defendant and Experts Warranted New Trial

Comments Off

Posted on 9th January 2010 by Jason A Volet in Politics

, , , , , ,

The question raised for the consideration of the New Jersey Supreme Court was whether the trial judge’s questioning violated the Defendant’s right to a fair trial.

The appeal arises from the Defendant’s conviction related to his killing of his parents. The Defendant shot and killed both of his parents after they had returned from a trip to Florida. He also stole around $40K dollars at the time of the shooting.

Following the testimony of the defendant, the trial judge began asking additional questions regarding the defendant’s recollection of the incidents related to the shooting. This issue had been extensively brought out on direct, cross, and redirect.

The judge repeatedly questioned defendant about remembering some things while not remembering others. After engaging the witness, the judge reminded the jury that it was “not to glean anything from my question or give any more weight to my questions.”

The judge also interjected himself during the direct examination of Dr. Verdon. Dr. Verdon testified that defendant had a marijuana addiction, and that he also abused other mood-altering substances, causing defendant to experience depression and “profound memory loss.”

The judge then lasered in on Dr. Verdon’s testimony in connection with defendant’s claim at trial that he had “some” memory of the encounter. The judge challenged Dr. Vernon concerning his statements about how long a person can remain under the influence of marijuana and what kinds of physical effects would be palpable hours later, in the process engaging Dr. Vernon in a detailed colloquy of the timing of the events leading up to the shootings.

At the end of that exchange, the judge again admonished the jury not to glean from his questioning that the court had any opinion as to how the jury should decide the matter and that the jury was the “sole judges of the facts.”

Following a short period of deliberation, the jury convicted the defendant. At sentencing, the defendant received a minimum custodial term of 130 years. His appeal at the Appellate Division was denied. Thus, he appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

According to the New Jersey Rules of Evidence, judges may question witnesses. Trial judges have broad discretion to intervene in criminal trials. This is to ensure that the rights of the defendant are not jeopardized. It is important to also note that the judges ability to intervene is not unlimited. The court must not telegraph any partiality to either party.

Upon reviewing this case, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the nature of the judge’s questions unfairly supported the prosecutor’s arguments that the defendant’s memory was selective. This may have led the jury to get the impression that the judge did not believe the defendant’s testimony, an area that is to be left to the jury. The Court ruled that through his questioning, the trial judge bolstered the witness testimony of the prosecution. The Court determined that questioning in this way was improper.

The defendant should not have to defend against the consequences of a trial judge is apparently did not believe him and his experts. Further, this disbelief should absolutely not have been conveyed to the jury. Since these circumstances are capable of producing an unjust outcome, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that a new trial was in order.

You can also learn more at our New Jersey Criminal Defense Law Blog.

An Indianapolis Criminal Defense Attorney Can Help Locals Protect Their Rights

Comments Off

Posted on 31st December 2009 by Lakisha Curtsinger in Politics

, , , ,

If you find yourself in a situation where you are facing criminal charges you have legal rights. Knowing these rights is important, and being able to defend your rights is even more important. There are attorneys that can help you protect those rights. If you are in Indianapolis then you should consulting a reputable Indianapolis criminal defense attorney that can help you protect your rights.

There are many defense attorneys that can help you learn these rights and provide legal counsel in this matter. Indianapolis criminal defense attorneys have experience in defending individual whose rights are in jeopardy. Corey Scott is a defense attorney in Indianapolis who has experience protecting local Indianapolis citizens protect their rights. Attorneys like Scott can educate you on your rights.

In these types of situations you should consult an attorney; you do not need to try to face these situations alone. You have legal rights under the federal and state constitutions. If these rights have been infringed upon then it may affect your case. No matter what the circumstances are behind your case there are legal rights that you are intended to, you have a right to have those protected.

A criminal defense attorney will be able to look at your case in detail, and make sure that your rights have been honored. They will also provide you with all the information necessary to understand what your rights are throughout the entire judicial process. Indianapolis Criminal defense attorneys will evaluate your case and understand that each case is different and should be treated as such.

The hiring process is very important and you should carefully select your attorney. It is pertinent to find someone who is experienced in similar cases and will understand the best route of action in your defense. With all the different options among Indianapolis attorneys you need to find someone who is highly regarded and is recognized as being an expert in this area of the law. You also need to comfortable and confident in your attorney.

Naturally you want someone in your corner that is not afraid to fight for your rights. The Indianapolis criminal defense attorney that you select to work with you should have an understanding of the unique issues pertaining to your case and be willing to use their experience and expertise to provide you with the best possible legal counsel. Be sure to ask around and inquire with friends as to who they would recommend.

If you are in Indianapolis then you should consulting a reputable Indianapolis criminal defense attorney that can help you protect your rights. More info now on http://www.coreyscottlaw.com

What Does Murder Actually Mean?

Comments Off

Posted on 11th September 2009 by Ariel Parat in Politics

, , , , , , , , , ,

Most people consider the murder the most serious crime of all. Murder is defined as the illegal (as opposed to legal killing like the death penalty) killing of a person. The killing must be intentional in order to be considered murder.

Murder is divided into three subcategories in the United States. The first category is known as first degree murder. This type of murder must have intent and premeditation behind it. For instance, if a wife thinks about killing her husband and then does it while he is sleeping, she would be convicted of first degree murder. The next category is known as second degree murder. Second degree murder is when a murder is committed during a felony. If a man holds up a grocery store and kills someone while escaping, thats second degree murder. The last category is third degree murder. Third degree murder occurs when the killer murders his victim, but only intended to harm them.

Manslaughter is an entirely separate type of murder. Manslaughter occurs when a murder has been committed, but the court for a variety of possible reasons decides that the killer is less culpable. The main defining characteristic of manslaughter is that the killer lacked intent to kill. Deaths that are accidental and occur due to negligence are also defined as manslaughter. Imperfect self-defense, provocation, diminished capacity and mental illness are common used defenses in trials.

There are three different types of manslaughter: voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter and vehicular manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter is the type of murder that people attribute to acting in the heat of passion. People convicted of this do not have a prior intent to kill, but are driven to do so due to circumstances that would cause a reasonable person severe emotional and mental distress. An example of this would be a man coming home, finding his wife in bed with another man and killing both of them in a jealous rage.

If someone is killed while a misdemeanor is taking place, then the murder is considered involuntary manslaughter or misdemeanor manslaughter. There is no intent or premeditation, but through negligence or illegal activities, a murder occurs. A good example of this type of manslaughter concerns a person who fires their gun into the air. What goes up must come down, and it ends up killing a random person. Even though they didn’t try to kill anyone, they are still culpable for the death.

Vehicular manslaughter is when a person kills someone with a vehicle, such as a car. The driver must do something negligent or illegal in order to qualify for this charge. For example, if the driver is drinking and driving, or getting high, when they kill someone, they are guilty of vehicular manslaughter.

If someone is convicted of murder of manslaughter, they may be facing charges ranging from the death penalty to life in prison. Other possible sentences include 1-20 years of jail time, community service, counseling and fines. If someone is sentenced to death, the odds of them actually making it to the electric chair are slim. People do not agree on whether the death penalty is a good punishment or not. Supporters say that it gets rid of murderers, while opponents say it is not a good deterrent against crime.

This article is brought to you courtesy of Exclusively Criminal Defense, a Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney. We have experienced defense lawyers with over 20 years of experience.