Florida Criminal Lawyer Blog

Cocaine Trafficking

Broward County criminal attorney William Moore has defended many individuals charged with cocaine trafficking over the last decade in South Florida. The mandatory prison sentences for cocaine trafficking convictions are so severe that a criminal charge of this nature is enough to turn ones life upside-down.

In 2008, federal agents seized nearly 9,371 kilograms of cocaine in Florida. This number is, of course, in addition to seizures by state and local law enforcement. The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) notes that Florida is a popular area for international drug trafficking for several reasons. The first is that Florida has over 8,000 miles of coastline which allows drug traffickers to utilize the waters and cargo ports for smuggling. In addition, Florida has several international airports which allow transit through drug couriers and cargo facilities. Furthermore, Florida’s diverse population of persons from Central and South America contribute to cocaine transactions which initiate in Florida and allow for distribution throughout the United States. The DEA notes that transporting narcotics is becoming more popular through ground transportation methods such as by passenger vehicle, bus, and rail

As notorious as drug trafficking has become, it is important to understand the applicable Florida statute. Broward County criminal attorneys emphasize that in order to convict a criminal defendant of Trafficking in Cocaine, the State must prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. Defendant knowingly either sold, purchased, manufactured, delivered, brought into Florida, or possessed a certain substance
2. That was cocaine
3. That was 28 grams or more
4. Defendant knew that the substance was cocaine or a mixture containing cocaine.

The Broward County criminal defense attorneys of William Moore, P.A. are always available to provide more information on the requirements needed for the State Attorney’s Office to succeed in a conviction for a charge of cocaine trafficking.

Cocaine Trafficking Case Law Review

In State v. Dominguez, 509 So.2d 917 (1987), the Florida Supreme Court recognized that knowledge of the substance (element four referenced above) was a key component that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt before an individual can be found guilty of trafficking in cocaine. In this case, Defendant Dominguez was arrested for his alleged role in assisting another man, Joe Brooks, in selling nearly 56 grams of cocaine to an undercover narcotics officer. At trial, Defendant testified that he did not know the substance was cocaine and that he had no knowledge that Brooks was trafficking drugs. Defendant stated that he accompanied Brooks to see a movie, however, Brooks insisted on driving around the parking lot when they arrived at the theatre. Brooks finally saw a man in another car, parked in the lot. Brooks exited his vehicle and cued Defendant to bring a package to the undercover officer’s car. Defendant did in-fact hand the package to the undercover officer. Defendant was then charged trafficking cocaine. Defendant appealed on the basis of the jury instructions given. Defense counsel had asked the court to instruct the jury that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the substance was cocaine. However, the trial court denied the request. The Florida Supreme Court agreed with Defendant and as a result modified the Florida Jury Instructions recognizing that the Defendant must have known that the substance being trafficked was cocaine or a mixture of cocaine because the mens rea, or mental state, is essential element of all trafficking offenses.

The Broward County criminal defense attorneys of William Moore, P.A. are available to discuss your case now. We never charge for an initial consultation. Call our lawyers today.

Article contributed by attorney Denise Grass.

The Fort Lauderdale criminal defense law firm of William Moore, P.A. handles criminal cases in the Broward County area and also publishes writings and information on all aspect of Florida criminal law. For more information contact our criminal defense attorneys directly.

One of the many available defenses to a criminal defendant is the insanity defense which is recognized in Florida Statute 775.027 . The trier of fact must consider whether the defendant was insane at the time that the crime allegedly occurred. A person is considered to be insane when it is proven that the individual suffered from a mental infirmity, disease, or defect which resulted in the fact that the individual did not know what they were doing or its consequences or that although the individual knew what they were doing and its consequences, they did not know it was wrong. A defendant who knew that that their behavior violated society standards or was against the law cannot be found insane. Unrestrained passion is not insanity, even though the normal judgment is impaired by passion or temper.

Fort Lauderdale Criminal Attorney on the Burden of Proof and Procedural Implications

All persons are presumed to be sane. The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that is precise, explicit, lacking in confusion, and of such weight that it produces a firm belief, without hesitation, about the matter in issue. If the trier of fact finds that the defendant was insane at the time the crime was committed, then the defendant must be found not guilty by reason of insanity. The court will then conduct further proceedings to see if the defendant should be committed to a mental hospital, given outpatient treatment, or released.

Broward County criminal attorneys often explain that in determining the issue of insanity, the trier of fact must consider the testimony of expert and non-expert witnesses. If the evidence establishes that the defendant had been adjudged insane by a court of law and had not been judicially restored to legal sanity, then the trier of fact should assume the defendant was insane at the time of commission of the alleged crime. This is true unless contrary to the weight of the evidence.

The defendant or their Fort Lauderdale defense counsel must give timely notice of the intent to raise the insanity defense. The state will then order the defendant to be examined by the state’s mental health expert(s) to assess the defendant’s sanity at the time the alleged offense was committed. State attorneys and defendant both retain the right to be present at said examination.

If a criminal defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity, the Department of Children and Family Services must admit the defendant to an appropriate facility. Within six months from the date of admission, the facility administrator must file a report with the court which addresses the issue of further commitment of defendant. A copy of this report must be served upon all interested parties. Or, if during the course of the initial six month commitment, the facility administrator believes that defendant not longer meets the criteria for commitment, a report attesting to that fact must be given to the court and all interested parties must be notified of that belief.

After receiving a report from the facility administrator, the court has thirty days to hold a hearing at which the defendant has the right to be present. If the court finds that the individual meets the criteria for continued commitment or treatment, the court will order further commitment or treatment for a period to exceed one year. This process will continue on a yearly basis until it is found that the defendant has been restored to sanity. Before any hearing to assess defendant, the court may, on its own motion or by request of either party, appoint two or three experts to examine the defendant as it pertains to the criteria for continued commitment or placement of the defendant.

The Fort Lauderdale criminal attorneys at William Moore, P.A. are available to answer your questions.

Fort Lauderdale criminal defense attorney William Moore is often asked about eyewitness identification.

Eyewitness identification is among the most widely used form of evidence in criminal prosecutions. However, this form of evidence is frequently subject to human error and which may result in misidentification. DNA evidence is only available in very few cases, so law enforcement and prosecutors often rely upon eyewitness identification in order to charge and convict.

There are several reasons why improper identifications are made. These reasons include cues from the line-up administrator, suggestive composition of line-ups, and the witness feeling compelled to make an identification. Psychological research supports the notion that the human memory is not like a video recorder. Each new piece of information helps to construct and transform the memory, which can be manipulated and transformed even by the most subtle cues and interactions with well-intentioned law enforcement officials.

Fort Lauderdale criminal lawyers emphasize that there are many empirical studies that have conducted which reveal the infallibility of the human memory and the high risk for error in eyewitness identification. Just one example, was shown in the 1974 experiment conducted by psychology professor Robert Buckhout. He broadcasted a 13 second video clip of a woman getting mugged which revealed the perpetrator run face forward toward the camera. Following the clip, viewers were shown a lineup of six men who resembled the attacker and a phone number to call in and identify the perpetrator. Professor Buckhout and his students handled the calls and the results revealed that only 14% of viewers made a correct positive identification which is about the same statistic that would have occurred if callers simply guessed. This finding corroborated the evidence from decades of similar research on eyewitness identification.

The National Institute of Justice and the American Bar Association advocate that certain procedural safeguards be implemented to help prevent misidentification in the criminal justice system. Those procedural safeguards include:
• Double Blind Presentation: An administrator who does not know the identification of the suspect should present the photo array or conduct the line-up process as to not exert any influence of the witness or victim
• Line-Up Composition: The suspect should be placed in a line-up with other persons who resemble the eyewitness’ description of the perpetrator, known as fillers, so that the suspect does not stand out and result in an unnecessarily suggestive composition
• Witness Instructions: The person viewing the lineup should be told that the perpetrator may not be in the line-up but informed that the investigation will continue regardless of whether an identification is made.
• Confidence Statements: At the time an identification is made, an eyewitness should provide a written statement in his or her own words indicating the fact that an identification is made and which indicates the level of confidence made in his or her decision.
• Recordation – Identification procedures should be videotaped to ensure that the witness is identified freely and voluntarily without undue influence from law enforcement.
• Sequential Presentation – Presentment of line-up members one by one by a blind administrator as opposed to in a side-by-side order

Legal professionals and psychology experts agree that widespread reforms must be enacted to prevent such errors. When innocent person are wrongfully identified, persons are wrongfully incarcerated, the victims are denied justice, and public safety is compromised as the real perpetrators remain at large.

For more information pertaining to the errors of witness identification please see the publication entitled “Re-Evaluating Line-Ups: Why Witnesses Make Mistakes and How to Reduce the Chance of Misidentification” published by the Innocence Project of Cardozo Law School.

Wrongful Convictions Cases Later Overturned Through DNA Testing
Which Involved Eyewitness Misidentification in Florida

1. Orlando Boquete – Convicted in 1983 and exonerated in 2007.
2. Larry Bostic – Convicted in 1989 and exonerated in 2007
3. Alan Crotzer – Convicted in 1981 and exonerated in 2006
4. Davis Cody – Convicted in 2006 and exonerated in 2007
5. Wilton Dedge – Convicted in 1982 and exonerated in 2004
6. Luis Diaz – Convicted in 1980 and exonerated in 2005
7. William Dillion – Convicted in 1981 and exonerated in 2008
8. Free Lee Smith – Convicted in 1986 and exonerated in 2000
NAME STATE CONVICTIO
Right to Counsel During Line-Ups
The right to counsel does not apply to photo identifications or at pre-charge investigative line-ups. At post-charge line-ups, a criminal defendant has the right to counsel. A defendant should invoke their right to counsel at a post-charge line-up to ensure that the line-up is fair and not suggestive.

If you have questions about any criminal case originating in Broward County Florida, contact Fort Lauderdale criminal attorney William Moore.

Article contributed by attorney Denise Grass