Florida Criminal Lawyer Blog

Broward criminal attorney William Moore knows that a lot of the mythology surrounding jury trials is deserved -- and trying them is part art and part science. Jury selection is complicated and the decision to strike a potential juror from a panel could be for any number of reasons, such as the occupation of a juror's spouse, his comments on where he gets his news, or a host of others. What it may not be based upon, however, is a discriminatory reason. For example, a female defendant accused of battering her ex-boyfriend might think she would rather have a jury full of women. (After all, she would say, they would understand how infuriating the deadbeat was!) However, striking prospective jurors on the basis of their race or sex is absolutely forbidden, notes Fort Lauderdale criminal lawyer Moore.

Residents who receive a jury summons in their mailboxes often complain, frequently because they are missing work and assume jury duty is boring -- which is not to say that waiting, sometimes for hours, to find out if you will be selected for a jury is fun. Some cases get reset for various reasons; others may end in plea agreements or finalized settlements on the morning that the trial was scheduled. Many prospective jurors also envision jury duty as what they have seen on television, which is often not representative. Anyone who followed the recent Casey Anthony trial (or who was a fan of John Grisham's The Runaway Jury) knows that it is possible for a jury to be sequestered.

Sequestering a jury is the tough decision to cut jurors off from the outside world in order to insure the integrity of the verdict. In these exceedingly rare cases, jurors stay at a hotel at taxpayer expense, and are shepherded between the courthouse and the hotel by bus or other means of transportation. The judge will instruct the jurors as to whom they are allowed to speak to and see, such as family members, and will explain that they are not permitted to discuss the case. Access to news, such as newspapers and television, may be curtailed in an effort to avoid tainting jurors' opinions -- or adding additional facts to their knowledge, when such evidence has been ruled inadmissible in the courtroom, such as hearsay accounts of what occurred.

The right to a trial by jury is enshrined in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . ." The jurors are selected locally. Impartiality is tested by asking the potential jurors a number of questioned designed to see if they would favor one side over the other or have difficulty remaining unbiased. For example, a mother who lost her child in a drunk driving accident would likely be excused from serving as a juror on a DUI trial, because her own personal feelings regarding DUI would be too likely to cloud her judgment as it related to the facts at hand.

The terms attorney-client privilege and attorney-client confidentiality are sometimes used interchangeably, notes Fort Lauderdale criminal attorney Moore, but in fact have very different meanings. Privilege, between clients and their attorneys or in other protected relationships, is the criminal defendant’s right not to have that person testify regarding their conversations. Confidentiality, on the other hand, refers to an attorney’s obligation not to reveal the details of the private conversations he has with his clients. Both confidentiality and privilege can be broken in very limited circumstances. Privilege may be waived by a client, for example, according to Broward criminal attorney Moore. Confidentiality may not apply where a client discloses to his attorney his plans to commit FUTURE crimes or fraud, where the attorney may need to act in order to protect, for example, someone’s personal safety. If a client calls his attorney and informs him that he is on his way to his ex-wife’s house to kill her, the attorney can and should notify law enforcement immediately in order to protect the woman. However, if a client hires a defense attorney and describes to him how he committed the crime for which he has been charged, confidentiality applies, says Broward criminal lawyer Moore. Attorneys must also abide by ethical rules that prevent their participation in or furtherance of clients’ criminal or fraudulent activities.

Privilege applies to some other relationships, as well. In some circumstances, one spouse may be able to prevent the other from testifying at a trial. The Florida rule states: “spouse has a privilege during and after the marital relationship to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, communications which were intended to be made in confidence between the spouses while they were husband and wife.” This means that even if the couple later divorced, the contents of the private conversations they had while married cannot be elicited from the other spouse in the courtroom.

Confidential communications between a parishioner and his clergyman (or rabbi or other spiritual advisor) are also privileged, so long as the conversations were private. Accountant-client privilege also exists Private conversations with a psychotherapist, even regarding alcoholism or other addiction problems, are privileged, although it is limited in circumstances where the patient may require hospitalization or be a threat to his own safety or the safety of others. Conversations with domestic violence or sexual assault counselors, provided they meet minimum qualification standards, are also subject to privilege.

Continue reading "Fort Lauderdale Criminal Lawyer: Privileges in Court and Confidentiality" »

According to Broward criminal lawyer William Moore, Juveniles are consistently treated differently than adults by our criminal justice system. Offenses alleged to have been committed by juveniles are labeled as “deliquent” acts, rather than criminal acts, in Florida and in many other states. Juveniles are not entitled to jury trials, unlike adults, but may be sentenced to probation or confinement in a secure juvenile program depending on the offense, the child’s prior record, and other factors. Children still have the right to a trial, but only before a judge. Diversionary programs, including community service and drug court, are sometimes available to juveniles who have been arrested in lieu of going to trial or accepting a plea deal, states Fort Lauderdale criminal lawyer Moore.

Direct file is the exception to the deliquency system. In certain cases, a prosecutor may file the charge directly in the adult criminal court rather than in the juvenile court. This procedure is generally reserved for juveniles who have very serious prior records, who have previously been placed in intensive juvenile programs, who are older teenagers, or who are accused of committing particularly serious acts, such as murder, according to Broward criminal attorney Moore.

The police must treat juveniles differently in some respects than they treat adults. When they are taken into custody, juveniles have to be held separately from adult defendants. Notice must be provided to the child’s parents and the child, if he or she is going to be held in custody, will be transported to the detention facility operated by the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice. In many cases, the child will be released on a monitoring program, but will have to abide by certain rules. For example, a teenager may be given an 8:00 p.m. curfew. If the state holds the juvenile in custody, the child has the opportunity to appear before a judge within 24 hours of arrest. In the event that the judge orders the child to remain in custody, the juvenile will be detained in a secure detention facility with other minors pending resolution of the case. Many juveniles will opt for a trial, which is usually faster than criminal court trials, in part because there is no jury. The juvenile can testify and can call other witnesses in his or her defense, and is entitled to discovery -- the evidence the state intends to use against the juvenile at trial.

Continue reading "Broward Criminal Attorney on Juvenile Justice Issues" »

Broward criminal lawyer Wiliam Moore says that for the past 44 years, juveniles have been subject to a different set of rules. In Florida and throughout the nation, juveniles accused of committing crimes (known as delinquency cases) are afforded a process that differs from adult criminal cases. In all but the most serious cases, children are tried in a separate courtroom with rules that differ from those applied to adults. Also, the records do not follow them into adulthood. The primary goal of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate delinquent youths so that they will grow into productive adults, not to punish them as the adult system tends to do. The exception to this general rule is where cases are “direct filed” within the adult system, known as charging juveniles as adults. This is rare except in serious felony cases, particularly murders, and is more common generally with older teenagers and those who have significant delinquency history, according to Fort Lauderdale criminal lawyer Moore.

Graham v. Florida was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in the 2010 term. The Court found that juveniles cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole with the sole exception of homicide. Therefore, a youthful offender who is convicted of rape, burglary, or other felonies cannot receive such a sentence, notes Broward criminal attorney Moore.

The Graham case is in the same vein as the 2005 case Roper v. Simmons, in which the Supreme Court held that youthful defendants cannot be sentenced to death for their crimes. This decision is in keeping with the differing standards for children. After In Re Gault, a 1967 Supreme Court case that led to the widespread establishment of a completely separate system for juveniles, courts began to handle juvenile matters much differently. Gault was a 15-year-old accused of making a harassing phone call to a neighbor, but did not have the opportunity to be notified of the specific charge against him nor to confront his accuser. Nonetheless, the trial court judge ordered that he be held in juvenile detention for as long as was necessary, including until he reached the age of majority (then 21 years). The Supreme Court ruled that juveniles have constitutional rights such as confronting witnesses, being notified of the charges the state has brought against them, and the right to have an attorney.

These rights have been implemented in the juvenile justice system in Florida. Children have the right to be represented by counsel and proceed in hearings very similar to bench trials in adult criminal court. There is no right to a jury trial, so the judge makes determinations of delinquency as well as sentencing.

Insanity is, surprisingly, a legal concept and not a term employed by therapists, psychologists, or psychiatrists, says Broward criminal lawyer William Moore. Only a small number of criminal defendants ever consider, much less use, insanity as a defense. There are several reasons, each as good as the next. One important reason is simply that most criminal defendants are not mentally ill. Another is that some would prefer to argue their innocence, whereas insanity is an affirmative defense: “yes, I committed the crime, but I should be excused” due to lack of culpability for the offense. A final reason is the fact that the insanity defense has a low probability of success, especially as the defense has become increasingly difficult to prove over the past three decades, notes Fort Lauderdale criminal lawyer Moore.

Florida uses the M’Naghten Rule for the insanity defense, says Broward criminal attorney Moore. The criminal defendant is presumed to be sane and must demonstrate that he is not. He must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that his mental capacity was so impaired that he could not differentiate between right and wrong. In practice, where a defendant asserts an insanity defense, he must undergo a competency evaluation. (Competency evaluations may also be ordered in other circumstances, such as when court-appointed counsel doubts a defendant’s ability to participate in his own defense, or when the accused may be mentally retarded and incompetent to stand trial as a result.) Two mental health professionals examine the defendant and form an opinion. If they do not agree about the person’s capacity, a third evaluator may participate.

If a person is found to be insane, such that he is not culpable for his crimes due to his inability to tell right from wrong, he may nonetheless be committed to an institution for treatment. To prevail on the defense, the defendant must have demonstrated that he did not have the bad intent to commit the crime. For example, a defendant accused of murder who cut another person, but was under the impression he was cutting a sandwich due to his delusions, cannot be held accountable for the act because he did not have the intent to murder someone. Also, because he was so unaware of what he was doing, the victim’s death was in no way a foreseeable consequence (to him) of his actions.

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.

Most people are familiar with the standard of proof in a criminal trial, notes Broward criminal defense attorney William Moore. The state, represented by the prosecutor, must prove the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” in order for the judge or jury to convict. What constitutes reasonable doubt depends. For instance, DNA or video evidence clearly showing that the defendant was present at the scene of the crime, or actually committed the crime, is quite compelling. Nonetheless, what constitutes proof beyond a reasonable doubt depends on the facts of each case, and the burden is always on the state to prove the defendant’s guilt -- not on the defendant to prove his own innocence. It is important to note that many or probably most criminal cases lack the highly definitive proof, like DNA, that many jurors like to see. Some criminal defendants are surprised to learn that they can be convicted based primarily on the credible testimony of other witnesses. In any case, the defendant is not required to testify, and if he chooses not to do so, that fact cannot be used against him. Jurors are specifically instructed that they are to draw no inferences, such as that the defendant must have a guilty conscience, from his choice not to testify.

Even though it is often said that the truth may be stranger than fiction, an off-the-wall explanation is not sufficient in most instances to create reasonable doubt. Just because the defendant or his defense attorney suggests that there is an alternative way that events could have unfolded that does not incriminate him does not believe that the suggestion will convince the jurors beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, in DUI cases, an implausible story regarding a second person who was the actual driver -- where that person cannot be located, the defendant cannot produce him as a witness, and the arresting law enforcement officer never saw another individual -- will probably not create reasonable doubt in the jurors’ minds, where the state has otherwise proven its case.

The notion that a criminal defendant is innocent until proven guilty is extremely important in American law, points out Fort Lauderdale criminal defense attorney Moore. As a matter of public sentiment, people often believe that a person must be guilty of the crime of which they are accused, or must have at least done something wrong, if they have been arrested at all. This is often an incorrect assumption based on their faith in law enforcement. Even the most dedicated and well-meaning police officers can still come to an incorrect conclusion regarding the commission of a crime.

Continue reading "Criminal Law & Standards of Proof -- Broward Criminal Lawyer" »

Many of Broward County criminal attorney William Moore's clients are concerned about the effect that a criminal record can have on their lives. Having a criminal record in your past can be problematic for many reasons. Employers are increasingly conducting background checks on potential employees, and workers with a past criminal records are seeking to have their records expunged or sealed in higher numbers. Most commonly, the offense on their criminal record represents either a serious departure from the person’s normal character or it was a result of a misguided youthful mistake. After all, a person can go joyriding in somebody else’s car at 18, but turn into a loving father with a respectable job at 35. These mistakes should not be held against them forever. Less frequently, people seek to have their records expunged because the conviction was the result of past problems in their lives, such as a drug addiction for which the individual was later successfully treated.

Generally speaking, Fort Lauderdale criminal attorney Moore notes that adult criminal records are a matter of public record, and a single arrest -- even if you were not convicted of the crime -- can follow you as you apply for jobs, seek approval for apartments or in homeowners’ associations, and otherwise interfere with your life. Sealing records makes them unavailable to the general public. However, certain government agencies would have complete access to the records. If the criminal records are destroyed, however, the records will not be publicly available (as with sealing), but even state agencies will be unable to view the records. Instead, they will only be able to see that there was an expunged record, but will not have access to the specific information contained within it.

Sealing and expunging of records requires that the applicant obtain a certificate of eligibility from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement before going to court on the matter. You will also have to be fingerprinted and meet other procedural and statutory eligibility requirements. In some instances, the record may need to be sealed for a period of ten years before expunction is a possibility.

Many criminal cases “plea out.” Of those that go to trial, they are for varying reasons, according to Fort Lauderdale criminal lawyer William Moore. Some criminal cases are great for going to trial due to the underlying facts or the conviction with with a defendant believes he is innocent or unfairly arrested. For example, when a person asserts total innocence, or when a defendant was targeted or harassed by police officers, these are better for going to trial. Likewise, when the plea agreements offered by assistant state attorneys are not good, or are not agreements the defendant would be willing to consider, trial is the best option.

In some instances, a defendant may want to take a plea agreement or it may be in his best interest to do so. For example, if a store caught the defendant on video switching the tags on expensive articles of clothing before purchasing them, it may be best to plea to the lesser offense of petit theft rather than grand theft. That way, the defendant does not risk near-certain conviction by the judge or jury without knowing the consequences in terms of sentencing. It may be in a defendant’s best interests to plead guilty or no contest in a case where he or she is unable or unwilling to do any jail time, because the defense attorney may be able to work out a plea deal with the state attorney that involves probation, classes such as anger management, or community service in lieu of time in jail. The availability of these alternatives depends on many factors, including the severity of the charge(s) and the defendant’s criminal history, if any.

So what makes a good plea agreement? The answer, from a criminal defense attorney’s perspective, is one that the client thinks is reasonably fair and which he can accomplish. For example, probation is not desirable nor possible for all defendants. If an individual is a frequent drug user, perhaps, or a long rap sheet, probation is not always the best solution, especially when it goes on for long periods of time. Unfortunately, violating probation can cause more problems and result in jail or prison time, so avoiding probation in the first instance is important for some criminal defendants.

In any case, a defendant has a constitutional right to a trial -- and many should and do exercise that right, whether before a judge or a jury of their peers. For that reason, the possibility of taking a plea agreement, or what constitutes a good one in your circumstances, can be addressed by Broward criminal defense attorney Moore.

Videos can be good or bad, depending on what they seem to show --

Criminal activity takes many forms, says Broward County criminal lawyer William Moore. It therefore is motivated by a number of factors. In his experience, Fort Lauderdale criminal attorney says that the variety of motivating factors is broad and notes, of course, that not all people accused of a crime are guilty -- the presumption of innocence is a vital component of the American justice system.

One issue is simply ignorance or even a mistake. Ignorance of the law is, unfortunately for clueless criminals, never a defense to violating the law. The type of crime that could occur involving lack of awareness of the law could be white collar, such as tax errors. Undersized lobster fishing is an ongoing hot button issue among fish and wildlife groups in Florida. Fishing an undersized lobster (one not large enough to reproduce) is a criminal violation in this state, says Fort Lauderdale criminal lawyer Moore. Therefore, if a law enforcement officer stops a fishing boat and measures the lobsters caught by the revelers or fisherman on board, anyone who caught a too-small lobster may be charged with a misdemeanor -- even out-of-staters from landlocked areas in which undersized lobster fishing is not an issue who are unaware of the Florida law.

The desire to have something is another motivator. For example, a woman who spies a pair of pretty but expensive earrings cannot afford them. She has recently been laid off and is under a lot of stress due to her precarious financial situation. She wants the earrings, so she quickly stashes them in her bag when the sales clerk is facing the other way, attending to a different customer.

Anger is a third motivating factor, often behind violent crimes such as domestic battery or simple assault and battery, says Broward criminal defense attorney Moore. A man who is angry with his wife, over his job, at his disciplinary problems with his child, and/or other factors may lash out and hit someone, especially if he is under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Substance abuse is another factor that motivates many people to commit crimes, frequently from the defendant's urgent need to fund the addiction. Unfortunately, this type of behavior can lead to theft, even from family members, all the way to armed robbery and burglary.

Continue reading "What Causes Criminal Behavior? A Discussion About Motivation " »

The Supreme Court is set to issue a ruling regarding the strip-searching of a 13-year-old Arizona girl by school officials. Students generally have fewer constitutional rights than adults do. For example, students’ free speech rights can be curtailed to some degree. School officials may discipline a student for posting a sign at a school-sponsored event that says “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” and is apparently meaningless, but they may not do so for students who wear black armbands in protest as a matter of political speech. Likewise, student athletes and students who participate in other extra-curricular activities associated with the school can be subjected to random drug testing. Broward criminal lawyer Moore believes that students should be protected from unreasonable actions by school officials, including unreasonable searches of students and their property.

A girl at the school was caught with prescription strength ibuprofen, a mild pain relieving medication which is sold at a somewhat lower strength over the counter under the brand name Advil. When she was interrogated by school officials about where she obtained the ibuprofen, she told them that the a different student had given it to her. The school’s strict “zero tolerance” drug policy includes even relatively mild drugs, like ibuprofen.

Student administrators located the student who allegedly supplied the first girl with the ibuprofen. They had no other evidence that she was in possession of an illicit substance. She did not have any prior disciplinary record. Still, when she denied having any ibuprofen, the school officials did not believe her, so they searched her belongings. They found no ibuprofen or other drugs. They were still convinced that she had drugs, however, based on the other student’s statement.

At that point, Broward criminal lawyer Moore thinks that school officials made a pretty serious decision: they decided to strip search the student do to the unfounded allegation that she possessed prescription-strength ibuprofen. Two female school officials made the girl strip to her underwear, even pulling the cups of her bra out to check inside them for ibuprofen. They found nothing. The 13-year-old girl, who had no disciplinary history and for whom there was no corroborating evidence to suggest that she possessed the drug, had been humiliated. She transferred schools as a result of the incident, which she found horrifying, and sued the school. Many criminal defense attorneys who have been following this case are anxious for the upcoming ruling.

Continue reading "Supreme Court Examines Middle School Strip Search Case" »

Criminal defendants are required to enter pleas in each In most cases, the defendant will enter a plea of ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty,’ according to West Palm Beach criminal lawyer William Moore has experience in all kinds of criminal defense, including sex crimes and DUI. A conviction for a felony or Broward criminal lawyer William Moore. Alternatively, some defendants prefer to plead ‘nolo contendere,’ which literally means no contest, or that the defendant does not contest the criminal charge or charges he is facing. A plea of nolo contendere is not technically a guilty plea, but it is treated in much the same way.

A defendant who does not have a good defense will often take a no contest plea as part of a plea bargain. In Florida, the nolo contendere plea can be used like a guilty plea or a conviction when calculating the recommended sentencing for later criminal convictions. Sentencing is frequently enhanced based on the defendant’s prior criminal record, particularly when the defendant has a history of crimes involving the use of firearms.

In modern criminal law, the nolo contendere plea comes from our English predecessors, says Palm Beach criminal lawyer William Moore. Some scholars have argued that is original origins are actually biblical, coming from a meeting of Jesus and Pontius Pilate in which Jesus neither agreed with Pilate nor admitted any guilt to the charge of promoting himself as the Messiah. The theory maintains that this stance was the basis for the modern no contest plea.

Alford pleas are different than pleas of guilty, not guilty, and even nolo contendere. An Alford plea is one in which the defendant admits that the government has enough evidence to meet its burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant maintains that he is innocent of the charge of which he has been accused, but declines to proceed in his defense in light of the evidence the prosecution has against him. The court then treats the defendant as though he is guilty and will impose sentencing. The judge hearing the defendant’s case must determine that there is a factual basis for the defendant’s plea, as with true guilty pleas. Fort Lauderdale criminal defense attorney Moore always discusses plea options thoroughly with clients -- and frequently takes cases to trial.

The Alford plea, unlike the no contest plea, is a relatively new invention. In 1970, the United States Supreme Court heard a now-famous case from North Carolina. State law provided that a defendant who pleads guilty to a capital felony – murder, in this case – will only face life in prison. However, if the defendant preferred to go to trial, he would face the death penalty if convicted, or the jury could recommend life imprisonment in the alternative. With that in mind, Alford agreed to plead guilty, although he maintained that he was an innocent man at every step of the process. He appealed his sentence, arguing that he was compelled to plead guilty due to his fear of capital punishment. The Supreme Court ruled that he made a voluntary choice and that his constitutional rights were not violated.

Continue reading "Alford Pleas and Nolo Contendere – West Palm Beach Criminal Defense Attorney" »

A Miramar high school student has been arrested for battery early this morning after an incident with a teacher recorded on video. The teen was booked at the Fort Lauderdale detention center for juveniles, but it was not clear if he would remain detained. Law enforcement officials say that when the bell rang this morning for students to go to their first period classes, the student in question remained in the hallway. When confronted by a teacher who apparently asked him leave the hall and go to his classroom, the student refused. Instead, his response to being told to go to class the second time was to “chest bump” the teacher, who is also male. School officials and police viewed the videotape before making the decision to arrest the teen, who is a junior at Everglades High School.

According to Fort Lauderdale juvenile lawyer William Moore, Florida punishes juvenile offenders harshly compared to other states. Many juveniles are “certified” as adults, so that they face adult criminal courts and adult sentencing rather than appearing in the juvenile justice system. Many anti-crime advocates have campaigned against light sentencing for teenaged (and sometimes younger) offenders on the basis that if a young person can “do the crime,” then he should be prepared to “do the time” in an adult sentencing scheme. Fort Lauderdale criminal attorney Moore says that the numbers of juveniles certified as adults in Florida has been rising consistently and that this pattern likely reflects public sentiment against youth crime. Proponents of keeping juvenile delinquents in the juvenile system argue that it is more well-suited to their needs and can focus more on rehabilitation than the adult criminal justice system, which is more retributive. Additionally, since scientific studies have shown that teens are less able to overcome impulses than adults, they believe that juveniles should not be punished like adults because they are not as culpable for their offenses. Proponents also note that major factors for juvenile delinquency include poverty and parental supervision, which are beyond the control of the offenders.

Despite the tough Florida laws, the standards for how states treat youth offenders has evolved significantly. Advances in juvenile delinquents’ rights with regard to the death penalty have come only recently, but nonetheless represent a dramatic shift in American jurisprudence. Until just a few years ago, several southern states still allowed minors who were at least 16 years of age at the time of the offense to be executed for their crime. The United States Supreme Court rejected capital punishment for 16 and 17-year-olds in a landmark decision in 2005. In 1988, the Court abolished the death penalty for juveniles under the age of 16. Now, the only countries that routinely execute minors are Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia.

Below is a video, which was not made or endorsed by Broward criminal lawyer Moore, on the consequences of capital punishment and life sentences for juvenile offenders:

Continue reading "Juvenile Justice in Broward County" »

West Palm Beach criminal lawyer William Moore knows that most people are familiar with the concept of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This complicated standard is known in the legal community as the burden of proof. In order for someone to be convicted of a crime, the judge or jury must find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof in a criminal case falls on the prosecution: the state attorney is responsible for demonstrating the criminal defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecutor fails to meet that burden, the defendant cannot be convicted of the crime and must go free.

Palm Beach criminal defense attorney Moore explains that the burden of proof must be satisfied by the introduction of evidence into the courtroom. For example, the prosecutor cannot speculate about facts or make crazy claims about the defendant without an evidentiary basis. In order to build a criminal case, the prosecutor must instead demonstrate the defendant’s guilt by providing evidence to show what the state believes occurred.

West Palm Beach criminal lawyer Moore says this can be accomplished in a variety of ways. One of the most common forms of evidence is testimony. A prosecutor can call witnesses who have personal knowledge of facts that tend to prove the defendant’s guilt, such as a garbage collector who saw a murder defendant place a bloodied knife into a trash bag the morning after his neighbor was stabbed to death. High profile cases, especially (although certainly not exclusively) capital murder trials, are known for the use of expert witnesses. Although these witnesses do not have personal knowledge about events related to the crime or the allegations against the defendant, their expertise in their field allows the court to give their testimony credibility due to their particularized understanding of the facts.

Famously, Marisa Tomei’s character in the movie My Cousin Vinny served as an expert witness for auto mechanics. A clip of the opening statements from that movie can be found below:

The prosecutor can also introduce “real evidence,” or actual items. He might bring a scratched up baseball bat into court if the state believes that the defendant used that bat to smash the windshield of his girlfriend’s car. Likewise, a murder weapon would be considered real evidence. Criminal defense attorneys, like prosecutors, introduce testimony and other evidence in their clients’ defense. For instance, a criminal lawyer might call a witness to testify to the defendant’s whereabouts at the time of the crime – an alibi.

The standard to convict a person of a crime is much higher than to award damages in a civil case. For example, in most civil cases, a jury or a judge will only have to find that the plaintiff proved his case by a preponderance of the evidence. Put another way, that standard means “it is more likely than not that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the defendant.” Criminal cases are subject to a much higher burden of proof due to the very serious nature of a conviction and the possibility of penalties such as imprisonment.

Continue reading "The Burden of Proof Explained by Palm Beach Criminal Defense Attorney" »

West Palm Beach criminal lawyer William Moore has learned over the years that many of his clients, prior to their arrests, believed that traffic offenses are always just tickets – never a criminal matter. While most traffic issues are civil offenses, punished by fines and points on your driver’s license, there are also criminal traffic offenses. Civil traffic offenses are violations like minor speeding tickets. If you are convicted of a criminal traffic offense, it will appear on your criminal record and you could even face jail time. Palm Beach criminal defense attorney Moore represents all kinds of criminal traffic violation and can advise you regarding the particulars of your situation.

One lesser known criminal offense that relates to traffic is the motor vehicle noise law. In Florida, it is illegal to alter the exhaust pipe on your car to make it very loud. In fact, you are not allowed to alter it so that it is louder than it was when the vehicle was originally manufactured. Doing so is a crime punishable by up to one full year in jail. You might think it sounds great, but the police – and your neighbors – will likely disagree.

Driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol or drugs is a more common criminal traffic offense. A DUI conviction can result in significant time in jail, substantial fines, and the loss of your driver’s license. The state’s public safety interest in protecting passengers is so great and the potential for serious car accidents is so high that driving while you are impaired by alcohol can be charged as a felony if you are a repeat offender. The state of Florida takes DUI crimes seriously.

Driving with a suspended license is another problem. Your driver’s license may have been suspended for one too many speeding tickets, your involvement in an accident, or due to a previous DUI arrest. If your driver’s license is not valid but the police find you driving nonetheless, you can face criminal prosecution.

Likewise, highway racing carries up to one year in jail, although it does not even have to occur on a highway. West Palm Beach criminal defense attorney Moore reminds drivers that racing or showing off your speed in a parking lot can also result in an arrest for highway racing, another criminal traffic offense that can result in the loss of your driving privileges. Highway racing can also include drag racing or racing other vehicles down a highway, especially if there are spectators.

These are not the only criminal traffic offenses, but they are among the most common. Palm Beach criminal lawyer William Moore advises Florida drivers to take care to follow local traffic laws in order to avoid traffic tickets, or worse, an arrest. A criminal record, even for a criminal traffic offense, should be taken seriously. If your driver’s license has been suspended, take care not to drive until it is reinstated.

Continue reading "Palm Beach Criminal Lawyer on Criminal Traffic Offenses" »

Fort Lauderdale criminal lawyer William Moore believes that a substantial portion of crimes are committed as the result of mental health problems. According to the South Florida Sun Sentinel, a woman in a local grocery store was engaging in odd activities in the baby food aisle last week. Police were called to the Tamarac grocery store after employees determined that the woman was engaging in odd and illegal behavior. Law enforcement officials found 50-year-old Shirley Ybarra of Sunrise wearing rubber gloves and injecting a black, ammonia-scented substance into the baby food containers and juice packaged for small children on the shelves.

Before Tamarac police arrived at the store, Ybarra explained to the store employees who confronted her that she was preparing food for her own child. Investigators later determined that Ybarra does in fact have a son, although he is 21 years old and does not resident locally in south Florida.

Fort Lauderdale criminal defense attorney William Moore is reassured that police checked other local stores for contamination, as well. Police determined that the store at 4121 West Commercial Boulevard was the only one in which Ybarra contaminated infant food with the smelly substance. The Sheriff’s spokesperson said, "What she did was dangerous. We believe this was an isolated incident."

Originally, law enforcement officials took Ybarra from the store under the provisions of the Baker Act, which requires police to take people who appear psychologically unbalanced into custody so that they can go to a mental health facility for further evaluation. She was likely taken in for evaluation due to her strange behavior and statements that were inconsistent with her actions and surroundings. Ybarra was later released from the mental health center and into the custody of the police. She was charged with poisoning food or water, which is a first-degree felony and carries a potential prison sentence of 30 years. Ybarra was additionally charged with violating probation. Fort Lauderdale criminal attorney William Moore does not have information about Ybarra’s legal representation.

Fort Lauderdale criminal defense lawyer William Moore encourages the responsible use of the Baker Act in order to protect the mentally ill and the surrounding community. The Florida Mental Health Act, which is more commonly known as the Baker Act, allows for the involuntary commitment of potentially unbalanced individuals. Police, judges, or mental health care professionals can invoke the provisions of the Baker Act. They must show that there is reason to believe that the person being held for examination is mentally ill and that he is a threat to himself or others or cannot properly care for himself. After the person is examined, they may be released, held for involuntary treatment, or referred to other community services. In this case, the professionals who examined Ybarra released her into police custody.

The Associated Press report is here:

Continue reading "Fort Lauderdale Criminal Attorney – Woman Contaminates Baby Food, Taken in on Baker Act" »

Broward County residents are familiar with the insanity defense from watching movies and observing famous cases in the news. Often cited but not well understood, it has become a fixture in popular culture in south Florida and elsewhere. Broward criminal attorney William Moore believes the most famous insanity defense in living memory was that of John Hinckley, the man who shot Ronald Reagan in a failed assassination attempt. Hinckley watched the film Taxi Driver over and over, developing a fascination with child actress Jodie Foster. Hinckley became consumed with his obsession, moving to Connecticut to follow Foster when she enrolled in college, stalking her around New Haven. Foster did not return his interest, so Hinckley devised other plans to impress her, like killing himself in her midst.

Eventually, Hinckley came to believe that the most effective way to get Foster’s attention would be to kill someone who he believed to be her equal – like a president. Failing to get near Jimmy Carter during his tenure, he plotted to shoot President Reagan, eventually firing six shots. Hinckley wounded three others in addition to Reagan, who was hit in the chest by a ricocheting bullet.

Hinckley’s trial was closely followed in Miami (where the weapon was originally assembled), Fort Lauderdale, and throughout south Florida. The jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity, and although he has remained institutionalized since 1982, there was widespread public outrage at the verdict. The insanity defense fell out of favor in the entire country. Broward criminal defense lawyer William Moore believes that the ramifications for the truly mentally ill are unfortunate, as punishment is often favored over treatment.

A number of states revised their insanity defense laws in the aftermath of the Hinckley trial. Florida’s insanity defense law allows defendants to acknowledge that they committed the act for which they have been charged, but argue that they should not be found guilty because they have a mental illness or defect. The defendant’s mental state must have been so severe as to prevent him from knowing what he was doing or the consequences of his crime when he committed the crime. Alternatively, the defendant may have understood what he was doing and the consequences of his actions, but can still invoke the insanity defense if he did not understand that his actions were wrong. The Florida legal insanity defense is the M’Naghten rule, named after a famous English case in the 1840s in which a severely mentally ill man attempted to assassinate the Prime Minister (and mistakenly killed the Prime Minister’s secretary, who M’Naghten believed to be the Prime Minister himself). A slim majority of the states have retained some version of the M’Naghten Rule and four states have eliminated the defense completely. A defendant who is successful in invoking the insanity defense will usually find himself confined to a mental hospital for a long period after the fact.

Recently, a Miami-Dade jury returned a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict. After the Hinckley case, the defense fell out of fashion in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach metropolitan area. The success of the defense was likely a shock to every Broward criminal lawyer. Johnnie Horne shot his parents and sister repeatedly in 1996; only his sister survived. Horne’s trial was put off for more than ten years because he was not competent to stand trial. The jury seemed to take into account some of Horne’s odd behaviors during the Miami trial, such as crying for no reason and making strange faces. Still, national trends show that jurors are very skeptical of the insanity defense, making Horne’s case a likely anomaly.

Continue reading "Fort Lauderdale Criminal Lawyer: the Insanity Defense Dying – But New Life in Miami-Dade?" »

Broward criminal lawyers hear a lot of crazy stories during their time in the Broward courtroom. With hundreds of arrests in the West Palm Beach/Fort Lauderdale/Miami-Dade area each day, there are plenty of unique situations to go around. Criminal attorneys and police in other parts of the country see their share of wacky cases, too!

High school students in Wrentham, Massachusetts were arrested during their underage drinking party – but how did police know it was going on? Well, some of the students posted information publicly about the alcohol-infused get-together on Facebook. A teacher notified the police. Who wants to be Facebook friends with the biology teacher, anyway?

A few months ago, federal officials in Missouri approached a man for whom they had an arrest warrant. Not wanting to get caught, he gave the police a fake name. It might have been more believable if he hadn’t taken the time to have his name tattooed onto his face before the incident!

An undercover Hartford police officer wasn’t happy to be pulled over on his time off. The cop quickly became suspicious, however, with the “cop” car’s nonstandard red flashing lights. He called for backup and the man attempting to arrest him was arrested – for impersonating a police officer! Talk about bad luck…

A cashier at the Verona Beach, Florida McDonald’s was taken aback when a customer tried to pay for his value meal with marijuana. Alarmed, the cashier called the police. The worst part? The guy with the weed was still inside the front doors when the cops showed up ten minutes later. That’s a serious case of the munchies!

The hunger doesn’t end there. A San Diego man was craving some lobster, so he stole a few from a state park. He was caught when the park rangers noticed “odd bulges” in his pants, which were actually six live lobsters. Ouch!

In Japan, the chief of police in charge of drunk driving was arrested recently. His crime? Drunk driving! Prior to the arrest, the man had been engaged in a marketing campaign, distributing information at bars to prevent drunk driving.

An Oregon man learned the hard way that he’s probably not up for Father of the Year this time around. After leading police on a drunk-driving chase through a neighborhood filled with children who had just been let out of school, the man pulled up to the elementary himself. He wasn’t surrendering, though – just picking up his own child on the way.

If you like to spin donuts in your all-terrain vehicle, be mindful of the location. After all, not everyone wants the grass torn up. An Ohio man learned that the hard way when he got caught making donuts in his ATV on the courthouse lawn! He’ll face charges in the same courthouse.
Speaking of bad locations, the police in Kenya walked out of the station a few weeks ago to find a car broken down outside. The police went to help the stranded citizens, only to discover that they were actually drug smugglers with $20,000 of marijuana in their luxury car. Needless to say, the men were arrested.

A man in Fresno, California, was accused of robbing a bank. He must have had a good lawyer, though, because he was acquitted. Always innocent until proven guilty, but getting caught robbing the same bank as soon as he got out of jail wasn’t such a bright idea. Well, if it wasn’t him in the first place, maybe all that talk about it in court helped him formulate the plan!

Continue reading "Broward Criminal Lawyer: "Dumb Criminals" " »

A Fort Lauderdale newspaper has reported that a former Lantana, Florida high school drama instructor has accepted a plea deal negotiated by his Fort Lauderdale criminal defense lawyer. Andrew Foster, 28, was a teacher at Santaluces High School when he began dating and having sex with two of his students, one of whom became pregnant as a result. Foster took the girl to obtain an abortion. She reported their activities to police when she was devastated by the discovery that he was engaged in an ongoing sexual relationship with another student. The teen had thought she and her teacher were exclusive couple planning to spend their lives together. Foster was later arrested and charged with two counts of unlawful sexual activity with a minor in Palm Beach County.

Foster’s criminal defense attorney indicated that the second young woman wanted to remain in contact with her former teacher. She testified on Foster’s behalf, telling the court that since she is now an 18-year-old adult, she would like to be allowed to remain in contact with Foster during his prison term. The woman, who is now a college student, told the court that she was not harmed by her relationship with Foster. The court ruled that while the teen may write to Foster, he is not allowed to contact her at all, even in response to any letters she sends. Circuit Judge Lucy Chernow Brown told Foster he is not to communicate with the victim through “skywriting [or]…any way that can be conceivably imagined.”

Under the terms of the plea deal negotiated by the prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers in the case, Foster will spend a total of five years incarcerated. Following his release, he will remain on sex offender probation for another decade following his release. Foster will also be required to submit to lie detector tests and HIV testing, in addition to the restrictions placed on all sex offenders with regard to where he may reside or find employment.

In Florida, unlawful sexual activity with a minor is a sex act between a child aged 16 or 17 and an adult 24 years of age or older. It is a second degree felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison and/or a fine of up to $10,000 for each count. Foster’s plea deal allows him to spend only five years in prison, with the 414 days he had served while awaiting sentencing counting towards the total.

Continue reading "Palm Beach County High School Teacher Arrested, Accepts Plea Deal for Sex Crimes" »

Since the 1970s almost thirty states have enacted laws designed to prevent criminals from receiving monies that may otherwise be derived from selling their stories. The problem is that in the early 90s the United States Supreme Court ruled that “Son of Sam” laws were unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment. The reasoning of the high court was simple; no laws may restrict speech based solely on content. Since the 90s several states have had similar laws on the books overturned by higher courts on the same constitutional grounds. In response, many states are enacting general forfeiture laws as an alternate deterrent. Under the new “Son of Sam” type forfeiture laws, the victims of said crimes would receive the profits of any stories sold by the assailant.

The most recent media attention that such a law received was in reference to OJ Simpson’s new book, “If I Did It.” Many criticize the law applied to this situation believing that Simpson received funds long before revealing his story, thus circumventing the Goldman family’s rights to all revenues.

In Florida we have seen prosecutors use the current laws on the books to seize small amounts of revenue. These lawsuits have been filed by Florida’s prosecutors in an effort to determine if such seizures would be appealed and overturned. The general consensus is that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement wouldn’t want to find out that forfeiture laws were flawed on a high profile and high stakes case.

I have heard the allegation before: An officer gets too rough with a suspect and needs justification for booking an inmate who is battered and bruised. Battery on a law enforcement officer or resisting with violence charges are all that are needed. I can’t tell you how many times I have been told by clients that they did nothing to a police officer who became excessively rough with them during an arrest. Regardless, these people were charged with the felony crime of battery on a law enforcement officer even if the "battery" was little more than a light push. What is more disturbing is that a majority of these cases started off as misdemeanors. The most recent case to travel through this firm involved an individual who had been arrested for possessing a small amount of marijuana. The client calimed that something was said didn’t sit right with the law enforcement officer conducting the investigation and he was beaten prior to being placed in the patrol car.

Instantly, the misdemeanor charge of marijuana was accompanied by the felony charge of battery on a law enforcement officer. The argument is that the failure to charge may have rendered officers liable for a law suit due to an unjustified use of force. We have had several cases in the past where our clients have been charged with battery on a law enforcement officer that were videotaped without the officer’s knowledge. On one such occasion in Fort Lauderdale, an officer’s in-car video equipment recorded a complete contradiction to his police report; an individual who was roughed up despite his doing his best to comply with the officer’s commands.

Recently, in Boynton Beach, Officer David Coffey, age 27, was fired from the Boynton Beach Police Department after an investigation revealed that he was unjustified in beating suspect Adam Weiss following an arrest. A surveillance camera captured images of Coffey slamming Weiss’s head into a concrete wall, grabbing his throat and tasering him four times. Officer Coffey, not realizing that his actions had been captured on video, proceeded to file battery on a law enforcement officer charges against suspect Weiss.

Had this video not existed, been destroyed, or had not been discovered, Adam Weiss would not only have suffered such a brutality but may also have been a convicted felon for a crime he never committed.

Continue reading "EXCESSIVE FORCE BY OFFICER WILL RESULT IN FELONY FOR SUSPECT" »

This week in Fort Lauderdale, I was again picking a jury in a criminal trial where the prosecution and defense are given an opportunity to question a presumptive jury panel. The panel is usually 21 people who need to be narrowed down to six who can try the issues of a criminal case fairly, without bringing pre-conceived notions or biases into play. Skilled criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors use this opportunity not only to wean out individuals that are likely to vote for their side in the trial, but also to educate these potential “tryers-of-fact” as to their role. From a criminal defense standpoint, this is the single most important time that he or she can begin to relate to jurors, form a relationship with, and get them to commit to rendering a not guilty verdict, even before hearing any of the evidence. When I got to my line of questioning whereby I ask potential jurors whether they find police officers to be more creditable than the average citizen. As usual, a great number of potential jurors did in fact believe that officers of the peace speak the truth while ordinary citizens lie.

Under our system of law, police officers are not to be given added creditability by virtue of their positions. In fact, this issue is considered so important that standard jury instructions include language that requires jurors to refrain from finding a police officer to be creditable simply because he is an officer. A case in point, Broward Sheriff’s Officer, Sgt. Lisa DiSavino.

On November 27, 2007 newspaper headlines read, “Deputy Slasher is Still on the Loose.” The 29 year old deputy had claimed that she had been stabbed while on patrol early Sunday morning in the City of Tamarac, Florida. A county-wide manhunt ensued involving officers, civilians, swat team members, and canine officers. They were looking for a male in his 20’s or 30’s, about 5’8”, with short brown hair and white shorts. He was wearing a Miami Dolphins jersey with the number 99 on it. A reward was issued for his arrest. Sgt. DiSavino had been very specific about how the incident had taken place. She claimed she had approached a suspicious man near a bus stop on Commercial Boulevard who proceeded to stab her in the stomach and run away. As violence towards officers has been sharply on the rise in South Florida in recent months and due to the fact the allegations came from a police officer, there was no doubt that someone had committed a crime and they would be tracked down, arrested and prosecuted, if not killed. I am surprised that no one was arrested as the description could fit thousands of people in South Florida. I am also not surprised to learn that the whole story told by the good Sergeant, was in fact, an absolute fabrication. Sgt. DiSavino had inflicted injury upon herself and then concocted a story about the assault. The Broward Sheriff’s Office has reported that she will not be disciplined, although she is on paid administrative leave. The Broward Sheriff’s Office describes her as being a model deputy who worked well with others and had undergone a large amount of police training.

Seasoned defense lawyers know the importance of educating the jury in the voir dire process and in closing arguments and explaining that giving officers extra creditability by virtue of their uniform is a violation of the rules in which we all share. To the contrary, considering that law enforcement’s number one obligation is to seek out crime and obtain convictions, it can easily be argued that their propensity to fabricate or at least bolster evidence mounted against the defendant is most certainly possible. Attorneys know that most jurors sitting in judgment of the defendant come to the table wanting to believe that police officers are more truthful than average citizens. However, they quickly begin to reconsider their position when asked questions such as whether they would be more inclined to buy an automobile from a police officer than an average citizen; if they have ever read any articles about a police officer being untruthful; or if they believe or understand that an officer’s job is to seek out and arrest people they believe have broken the law and obtain convictions in greater numbers as opposed to fewer.

Continue reading "BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICER STARTS BOGUS MANHUNT " »