Evidence

December 23, 2011

Model Arrested for Attempting to Smuggle Cocaine through the Airport

As a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer I scour the local, national, and world news to stay informed on current Criminal legal issues. Just recently a news article by Foxnews.com sparked my interest. The article titled “Cocaine Bust Lands Curvy Model in Italian Jail,” was a colorfully written article.

The article states a Spanish model attempted to smuggle Cocaine into Italy via prosthetic breasts and buttocks. The model’s plan was to distract the TSA by wearing tight-fitting clothes and her attractiveness would take suspicion away from the real task at hand. However, her “extra-large bosom and derriere” caught the attention of TSA and they investigated. After failing to provide sufficient answers to their questions, they conducted a strip search. The search revealed the model was attempting to smuggle 5.5 pounds of cocaine.

Currently the charges are pending and dependent upon Italian and international law, the charges could be quite severe. This article intrigued my legal mind because it shows the diminished expectation of privacy one holds while traveling through airports. At airports all the authorities need is reasonable suspicion before they can investigate. In contrast, inside one’s own home the expectation of privacy is very high. Police are required to have a warrant before entering your home, absent exigent circumstances.

December 22, 2011

Admissibility of Collateral Crimes and Premeditation for Murder

by David M. Goldman

Balzourt v. Florida comes before the 2nd DCA on appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County. The appellant is appealing his first-degree murder charges under two different legal theories. First dealing with the Rules of Evidence and the admissibility of collateral crimes. Second dealing with the State’s burden of proving premeditation to support the charge of first-degree murder.

The appellant was convicted for murdering his then girlfriend and setting her body on fire in the nearby woods. The victim’s cause of death was determined to be asphyxiation and the state was able to prove the appellant had committed the murder.

The first issue in this appeal deals with the Williams rule. The appellant contends the evidence allowed to be admissible did not similar enough to satisfy the requirements for admissibility. Under Williams, collateral crime evidence is only permitted when used to prove a material fact and not just to show bad character or propensity. Furthermore, Courts have required strict compliance and similarity between the acts before they can be admitted before the courts. In this case, the State introduced evidence of a prior strangulation of an ex-wife of the appellant. In that incident, the two were arguing over an ex-boyfriend and during the heated argument he strangled her to the point of unconsciousness. That incident took place in the middle of the day. In contrast, this incident occurred between the appellant and a girlfriend, in the middle of the night, and the state failed to prove what caused the incident in the first place. Based on the forgoing facts, the Court determined the evidence was improperly admitted and remanded for a new trial.

October 19, 2011

Should I Hire a Jacksonville Criminal Attorney if the Police Are Questioning Me?

by David M. Goldman

Imagine that the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office sends a police officer to your home for questioning. You hear a knock on your door, and you are not sure why the police officer is there. He begins to question you about a recent Jacksonville Florida crime. Due to his line of questioning, you feel uncomfortable. You are not sure if he believes you are a witness or a suspect. You are worried that if you refuse to speak with him, he will think that you have something to hide. However, if you talk to him, he may misconstrue your words and use them against you.

These are all normal reactions. As a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer, I have represented clients that were not charged with crimes, but they were under investigation by the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office. For people that are not involved in the Jacksonville legal system, it is difficult to discuss a case, because they do not understand all of the circumstances surrounding the case. Normally, when a police officer suspects that a person has committed a crime, he is not seeking evidence that will exculpate or exonerate the suspect. He is usually seeking evidence that tends to implicate the suspect. When you discuss your case with a police officer, you may be giving him evidence that he can later use against you.

You should considering hiring a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer to speak with the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office and discuss your case with you. The Jacksonville Criminal Attorney can be present at any meetings that you have with the police officer and advise you of the best route to take during the case’s investigation. If you are under investigation, contact a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer to assist you in these tricky times and to make sure your legal rights are being protected.

October 1, 2011

How Can I Get My Jacksonville Criminal Charges Dropped?

by David M. Goldman

How can I get my Jacksonville criminal charges dropped? There is not a clear answer to this question. Every Jacksonville criminal case must be evaluated on a case by case basis. The Duval County State Attorney Office may chose to drop charges for different reasons, but it is completely within the Jacksonville prosecutor’s discretion. Even if the State Attorney does not drop the charges, he or she may chose to make a plea offer for a lower or lesser criminal offense. Charges can be dropped or decreased for the following reasons:

Lack of Evidence: If the State does not have the evidence required to move forward with the case, they may drop the charges or make an offer to the Jacksonville Criminal Defendant to plea to a lesser offense.
Pretrial Intervention or Diversion Program: The State of Florida offers a pre-trial intervention program. This is a diversion program that the Jacksonville State Attorney may offer in some cases. If the Jacksonville Criminal Defendant completes the program, the State of Florida will drop the charges.

July 22, 2011

Florida Police Without Reading Miranda Warnings Properly but Questioning was Constitutional

by David M. Goldman

A Florida man was charged and convicted of felon in possession of a firearm. In Powell v. Florida, this Florida Criminal Defendant was arrested in the apartment in which the gun was found and taken to the police station where Florida police officers questioned him. Police officers testified that Powell stated that the gun was his.

The United States Supreme Court held that:

“Criminal suspects have a right to have their lawyer present during police questioning, and the police are required to inform suspects of that right as part of their “Miranda warning.” In this case, police officers told a suspect that he had “the right to talk to a lawyer before answering [any] questions” and “[y]ou have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview.” The Court held that even though this warning did not specifically mention the right to have a lawyer present during questioning (as opposed to the right to talk to the lawyer before questioning), the warning nonetheless was constitutional because it conveyed to the suspect that he had the right to have an attorney present.”

July 18, 2011

Miranda Warnings and the Right to an Attorney in Jacksonville, Florida

by David M. Goldman

If you are arrested in Jacksonville, Florida, you have certain rights provided by the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court held, in Miranda v. Arizona, that police must inform persons in custody that they have the right to remain silent, anything that they can be used against them, they have the right to the presence of an attorney, and an attorney will be provided if they cannot afford one. These are known as Miranda Warnings.

If police do not comply with Miranda warnings when arresting a person in Jacksonville, Florida, a Jacksonville Criminal Attorney may be able to suppress (throw out) any statements made by the Jacksonville Criminal Defendant. However, there are exceptions to this rule which can be found in other Supreme Court rulings, such as Florida v. Powell, 130 S.Ct. 1195 (2010).

July 17, 2011

United State Supreme Court Rules that Juvenile Criminal Defendant’s Constitutional Rights Were Violated

by David M. Goldman

In J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S.Ct. 2394 (2011), a uniformed officer questioned a 12-year-old boy at school about a string of local burglaries. The officer told the boy he was free to leave, but also told him that a court could order juvenile detention. The school’s assistant principal told the boy to “do the right thing.” Eventually, he confessed to the burglaries. At trial, the boy’s lawyer argued that the confession was essentially coerced due to the boy’s age and the circumstances surrounding the questioning. The state courts in Florida held that the boy was not in detention, because he was free to leave. Therefore, Miranda warnings were not required.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that the child’s age is relevant. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out, children are required by law to go to school and are often subject to discipline for disobedience. Students are therefore much more likely to believe that they are obligated to answer police questions. Therefore, Miranda warnings are required in order to inform students that they do not have to answer police questions and can contact an attorney.

If you or your child has been subject to police questioning, you should contact a Jacksonville Defense Attorney to discuss the case.

July 16, 2011

Jacksonville Juvenile Criminal Suspects are Entitled to Warnings Before Being Questioned by School Campus Police Officers

by David M. Goldman

As a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer, I have represented juveniles that were questioned by police officers in their schools. Recently, in a 5-4 ruling, the United States Supreme Court addressed this issue. For the first time, the Court ruled that children questioned by police in school must be given Miranda rights before questioning. The Supreme Court released its decision in In J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S.Ct. 2394 (2011), on June 16, 2011 (See United State Supreme Court Rules that Juvenile Criminal Defendant’s Constitutional Rights Were Violated by a Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer).

June 1, 2011

Florida Times-Union Posts Surveillance Photos to Identify Suspect in Jacksonville Crimes

by David M. Goldman

The Florida Times-Union’s website (Jacksonville.com) posts occasional surveillance photographs of recent crimes in Jacksonville, Florida in an effort identify the suspects. The Florida Times Union in Jacksonville titles these articles, Perp of the Day, and runs the stories with photographs which are picked up by other online media sources. The this causes the Jacksonville crime to be broadcasted in other areas which would increase the likelihood of an arrest.

However, it is important to note that surveillance pictures are often bad quality. This could lead to a false arrest. A person could be arrested for a Jacksonville crime that he or she did not commit. Therefore, there should be other evidence linking the suspect to the crime. In some cases, police will question a Jacksonville criminal suspect for the purpose of obtaining more evidence. This is one of the many reasons that anyone suspected of a crime in Jacksonville, Florida should speak with a Jacksonville Criminal Lawyer prior to answering any questions.

April 13, 2011

Fifth Amendment’s Right Against Self-Incrimination Applies to Jacksonville Domestic Violence Injunction Hearings

by David M. Goldman

The Fifth Amendment is applied to Florida, and all the other States, through the Fourteenth Amendment. It protects a person from self-incrimination and is meant to “assure that an individual is not compelled to produce evidence which later may be used against him as an accused in a criminal action.” Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 461 (1975). A witness in a civil proceeding has the right to refuse to respond to a question on the grounds that his answer may tend to incriminate him. See Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 444-45 (1972).

In an injunction hearing is a civil proceeding. Quite often, the civil proceeding is intertwined with a criminal case. For example, the respondent that is defending against the restraining order may also be the Jacksonville criminal defendant in a Jacksonville domestic battery case. Other example occurs when the respondent has not been charged with a crime, but he or she may be arrested in the future for conduct alleged in the Jacksonville petition for an injunction.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals has found that a respondent did not waive his Fifth Amendment right when he testified at a Florida injunction hearing. Since this right “is a fundamental principle secured by the Fifth Amendment, waiver of the privilege will not be lightly inferred, and courts will generally indulge every reasonable presumption against finding a waiver.” Jenkins v. Wessel, 780 So. 2d 1006, 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (citing State v. Spiegel, 710 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). The court held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is waived “only as to matters relevant to issues raised by [the witness’s] testimony on direct examination.” Jenkins, 780 So. 2d 1006, 1008 (citing Johnson v. State, 509 So. 2d 373, 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)).