Florida Criminal Lawyer Blog

Last year, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a case known as Rivera v. Illinois, according to Broward criminal attorney Moore. Michael Rivera was the criminal defendant in a 1998 trial in which he faced two counts of murder in the first degree. During the voir dire, the questioning of the jury by the prosecutor and the defendant's criminal attorney, the defense identified a juror that they wanted to strike from the panel.

The criminal defense attorney therefore moved to strike the juror using a peremptory challenge. The prosecutor for the state of Illinois objected to the strike on the basis that it may have been for an impermissible reason -- the prospective juror's gender. The defense lawyer denied that gender discrimination was at issue. Nonetheless, the judge denied the defense motion and that juror was seated.

Fort Lauderdale criminal lawyer Moore says that Rivera was later convicted of both murders at trial. Rivera was sentenced to 85 years of prison as a result of the convictions. He appealed and the Supreme Court of Illinois remanded the case back to the criminal trial court, seeking a more specific ruling on how the peremptory challenge was in fact discriminatory. The trial court clarified that the issue turned on gender discrimination and the case returned to the Illinois Supreme Court for review. At that point, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to support a determination that the defense counsel had sought to exclude the juror based on sex. Nonetheless, the Illinois Supreme Court found that the problems was a "harmless error" in that it would not have resulted in a different verdict had the prospective juror not been seated.

Rivera challenged the decision at the U.S. Supreme Court under the Due Process Clause. In a 2009 decision, Court found that reversing the verdict was not an appropriate remedy because the mistake was made in good faith by the trial court. Further, since the jurors who actually returned the verdict were unbiased and qualified to serve as jurors, there was no harmful error and the jury's verdict stood. The decision was unanimous.

Jim Morrison, the famed musician of the Doors, died tragically in Paris in 1971. He was only 27 years old at the time of his death, but influenced American music forever, says Broward criminal lawyer William Moore. During his lifetime, however, Morrison's style and his musical contributions were not appreciated by everyone, especially older Americans not yet accustomed to the rock'n'roll music scene. He faced harsh criticism as a result. That criticism is what some believe led to a false criminal charge; others, however, maintain that they saw actual criminal activity take place, says Fort Lauderdale criminal lawyer Moore.

Morrison was performing with the Doors at a 1969 concert in Miami when he was accused of exposing himself during the performance. His bandmates have always denied that he actually exposed himself, but acknowledge that he was intoxicated during the concert, and simply did "a mindtrip on the audience." Numerous audience members swore that he did not expose himself, but other onlookers said that he did do so, including police officers who were providing security at the widely anticipated event.

As a result, Morrison was slapped with the criminal charge o indecent exposure. He was convicted and thereafter sentenced to six months in jail. At the time of his death, Morrison's case was on appeal. Since his conviction, many fans and other interested individuals have championed his cause, arguing that Morrison was unfairly convicted when the evidence against him was minimal and did not rise to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

A few years ago, these supporters found a friendly ear in the governor of Florida, Charlie Crist. Crist was first approaced by a Doors fan about the possibility of a pardon in 2007, he says, and after looking into the issue, he began to give the matter serious thought. Crist is slated to leave office in January. Ultimately, the pardon board, which the governor participates in, voted unanimously to pardon Morrison for the offense of indecent exposure. Crist has stated publicly that everyone deserves a "second chance," and implied that the evidence against Morrison was flimsy at best, noting that Morrison was young and may or may not have made a mistake. In any case, the clemency board decided that the conviction should not stand in its December 9, 2010 vote.