Evidence

January 6, 2010

Florida Jurors are Permitted to Ask Questions in Florida Criminal Jury Trial

The Florida Supreme Court recently made changes in the law which allow jurors to take notes and question witnesses in civil cases. As for criminal cases, the judge presiding over the case may decide whether or not to permit such questioning. Some Florida judges permit this type of questioning routinely. For instance, Judge Michael Andrews is the judge presiding over the Diullio murder trial in New Port Richey, Florida. He allowed jurors to ask questions during the trial. The questions were submitted to the judge in writing to determine if the questions may be asked. For example, while a jurors were permitted to ask what clothing Diullio and his co-defendants were wearing on the night of the murder, they were not permitted to ask whether Diullio had a criminal record. The reason this question was not asked is because it violates the Florida Rules of Evidence. Therefore, Florida jurors may not ask a question that an attorney would not be permitted to ask.

Some Florida judges do not allow jurors to ask questions in criminal cases. Circuit Court Judge, Pat Siracusa, does not permit such questioning. She believes that it is the prosecutors burden to prove the case. When jurors ask questions, they leave their role of the neutral fact-finder and become investigators.

To learn more about John Ditullio’s murder trial, visit www.tampabay.com. If you have questions about a Florida Criminal Case, contact a Jacksonville Criminal Attorney.

October 19, 2009

Florida Driving Under the Influence Case: Motion to Suppress Granted Due to Hearsay

by David M. Goldman

In Bowers v. State of Florida, the Florida Second District Court of Appeals recently affirmed a county court’s ruling that suppressed all evidence obtained during the search of a driver’s vehicle during a Florida Driving Under the Influence (DUI) stop. This ruling was based on the fact that the police officer that initiated the vehicle stop did not attend the hearing on the motion to suppress. Thus, the only evidence that the State of Florida presented to meet its burden of proving the validity of the Florida DUI stop was through the hearsay testimony of the DUI officer that was not present during the initial stop of the vehicle.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeals ruled differently than the Fourth District Court of Appeals did in a similar case. In Ferrer v. State, 785 So. 2d 709, the court allowed hearsay evidence to support probable cause for a Florida DUI stop although the state attorney failed to call the officer that initially stopped the vehicle. The Fourth District Court of Appeals held that such evidence was admissible due to the fellow officer rule.

Therefore, the Second and Fourth District Courts of Appeal are in conflict. It should be interesting to see if this Florida DUI case makes it to the Florida Supreme Court based on such conflict. Since the First District Court of Appeal has not ruled upon this issue, I do not know what position a Jacksonville Florida court would take if confronted with similar facts in a Jacksonville DUI case. However, it would make more sense for a Jacksonville court to follow the Second District Court of Appeals based upon the fact that the fellow officer rule is not an exception to the hearsay rule. Therefore, the court should not allow such evidence to be admitted.

August 13, 2009

North Florida Jury Convicts Teen of Murder After Hearing Her Confession

by David M. Goldman

In Putnam County, Florida, a 16-year-old girl was conviction of murder, burglary, and assault. While in police custody, the Florida teen confessed to helping her boyfriend kill the disable 66-year-old man. It took the jury only two hours to find her guilty.

Confessions can be devastating to a criminal case. In most instances, the defendant is lured into the confession. Often, a police officer states that the defendant is only helping herself by speaking with him, but this is far from the truth. Any one that is charged with a crime, should exercise their right to remain silent and have an attorney present for questioning. If a defendant wants to answer and officer’s questions, she should have an attorney in the room when doing so. Police officers have experience in interrogating suspects, whereas most suspects do not have experience in this area. Thus, the playing field is not level. In order to keep things fair, an attorney should be there to advise the defendant.

As a Jacksonville criminal defense lawyer, I have represented many clients that had great cases until I received a copy of the confession. In some cases, I was able to get the confession suppressed, so the jury never gets to hear it. However, this does not happen in all cases. The moral of the story… when an police office says “you have the right to remain silent,” do not talk. If you still have the desire to speak with the officer, tell him that you will speak to him, but you would like to have an attorney present. If he does not want to talk to you after that, then he has something to hide.

May 8, 2009

Innocent Man Released After Intense Investigation

by David M. Goldman

“Thirty-year-old convicted murderer, Thaddeus Jimenez, was released from prison after serving only sixteen years on a fifty-year prison sentence.” When people here something like this, they can’t believe it. Why are we letting violent criminals out of prison? The answer: he is innocent. That being said, let’s rephrase the headline: “Wrongfully convicted man is exonerated after serving sixteen years in prison for a murder that he did not commit.” Mr. Jimenez was arrested for the murder at age 13 and spent the last 16 years trying to prove his innocence.

How does this happen? The facts did not change. Mr. Jimenez did not jump into a time machine and stop the murder from occurring. The reason this case was overturned was due to the hard work of many criminal defense attorneys. Criminal defense attorneys that dedicated many hours to further investigating this case, so they would be able to support a motion to vacate the conviction. After several years, these attorneys were able to succeed.

While Mr. Jimenez has been vindicated, there is one thing that he can never get back. The 16 years of incarceration he has served. The time away from his family and society. The lost of education and experience. When Mr. Jimenez was incarcerated, cell phones were not the norm, self-check out at the grocery store did not exist, and “who is this Britney Spears?” He has to learn about a new culture and changed society.

February 18, 2009

Jacksonville Criminal Lawyers Seek Evidence from State Attorneys

by David M. Goldman

Jacksonville criminal lawyers know how important the criminal discovery process is. The evidence that a Jacksonville criminal lawyer obtains from this process determines what route to take in a case. More importantly, Jacksonville criminal lawyers advise their clients based on the evidence discovered. Therefore, discovery is the most important part of a case. Jacksonville criminal lawyers seek all the evidence that the State of Florida has against a criminal defendant, and the State has an obligation to provide it. However, this does not always happen.

Florida law provides a remedy when the state fails to disclose evidence called a Richardson Hearing. If a discovery violation occurs, the trial court must hold a hearing. At the Richardson Hearing, the trial court must ask 3 questions:

Was the State’s violation willful and inadvertent?
Was the violation substantial?
What effect did it have on the criminal defendant’s ability to prepare for trial?

If a Jacksonville criminal lawyer succeeds at the Richardson Hearing, the trial court must determine what remedy is proper. In some cases, the court merely allows the defense a few more minutes to adjust its case. In other cases, the court will penalize the State and refuse to allow the evidence to be submitted to the jury.

January 19, 2009

Cash is Irrelevant in Florida Possession of Cocaine Cases

by David M. Goldman

In Jacksonville possession of cocaine cases, the prosecutor will often attempt to enter into evidence the fact that the Jacksonville possession of cocaine defendant had a large amount of cash in his possession. Obviously, this highly prejudicial to the Jacksonville possession of cocaine defendant. When a defendant is alleged to have illegal drugs and large amounts of cash on his person, most juries will look at the defendant and see a drug dealer. Evidence of cash in a Jacksonville possession of cocaine case is irrelevant and should not be allowed. In mere Jacksonville possession of cocaine cases, the defendant is not alleged to have sold the cocaine. He is merely in possession of the cocaine. Therefore, the fact that he has a large amount of cash on his person has nothing to do with the possession of cocaine, and is irrelevant. To learn more about Jacksonville possession of cocaine evidence law, read Mosley v. State or contact a Jacksonville Possession of Cocaine Attorney.

December 19, 2008

More Evidence in Anthony’s Florida Child Murder Case

by David M. Goldman

There is new evidence in the murder case of Caylee Anthony, a Florida missing child. At the start of this Florida missing child case, many suspected that her mother, Casey Anthony murdered the child in Florida. However, Casey Anthony was not charged with the Florida murder until months after the child’s disappearance, due the need for more evidence. In October, she was charged with the Florida murder of her missing child. Today, more circumstantial evidence in the Florida child murder case was discoveredand is likely being reviewed by her Florida criminal lawyer and the Florida prosecutor. The remains are just another piece of evidence that her Florida criminal defense lawyer will need to rebut.
Continue reading