Miami Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Second Week of Jury Selection Begins in Zimmerman Case

Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:09:05 -0500

After three days of jury selection, 29 potential jurors were ordered by the judge to return to court this week. After prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers questioned dozens of potential candidates, those who have not been stricken for cause were told to come back to court to participate in the ongoing jury selection in the highly publicized Zimmerman case. The case involves the shooting of a young black male in Sanford, Florida. Due to the publicity the case has garnered over the past year, it is difficult to say the least, gathering a fair an impartial jury to determine Zimmerman's fate.

Most criminal defense attorneys will tell you that the most important part of any criminal jury trial rests with the first part of any criminal case, jury selection. Questioning of potential jurors by the judge and the participating lawyers is supposed to meet one common objection, seat fair an impartial jurors to determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant. A secondary objection in jury selection is to build a rapport with the jurors. Zimmerman has pled not guilty to one count of second degree murder. Because second degree murder is not a capital offense, six primary jurors will be chosen to determine his guilt or innocence. Additional jurors will be selected as alternates. The number of alternate jurors will be determined by the judge. The alternate jurors will hear all of the same evidence as the primary jurors. If one or more of the primary jurors cannot fulfill their obligations, the alternate jurors will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

Of the 29 candidates ordered to return for a second week of jury selection, 19 are white, six are African American, two are Hispanic, and one is Asian-American. While race is never supposed to play a role in any criminal trial, a cases of this nature make it difficult to overcome that hurdle. Zimmerman, a white male, is accused of killing Trayvon Martin, a black male, in cold blood. Zimmerman has availed himself of self-defense claim since the date of the shooting incident. The case has caused a lot of public scrutiny because the victim was a young black male who was shot while walking through a gated community by a white male.

The judge's goal is to compile 40 perspective jurors that during initial questioning were found to be fair and impartial. Seventy-five potential jurors have already been dismissed after the first round of questioning. Once the first 40 jurors pass the first test, prosecutors and defense lawyers will begin a second round of questioning in an attempt to seat the six primary jurors and the alternates. Jurors can be dismissed for two reasons under Florida law. The first is referred to as a challenge for cause. Challenges for cause will be granted if a juror can not be found to be fair and impartial. The court will make the ultimate determination whether a juror can be fair and impartial. The lawyers involved in the trial can make as many challenges for cause as they think are appropriate. The second type of challenge is called a peremptory challenge. In felony cases that are punishable by death or life in prison, each side is entitled to 10 peremptory challenges. In all other felony cases, each side is entitled to six peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges can be made for any reason as long as it is race and gender neutral. The media expects jury selection to completed as early as next week.

29 Possible Jurors to Return in Zimmerman Case, South Florida Times.com, June 17, 2013.

Cruise Lines Under Scrutiny

Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:39:12 -0500

The laws regarding the reporting of crimes in large part do not apply to cruise lines. The delayed reporting of crimes by the cruise industry has come under scrutiny by lawmakers and watchdogs alike. With Miami and South Florida being major ports of call for the cruise line industry, it is important for criminal defense lawyers and passengers to understand the laws that govern the reporting of crimes at sea. Congress created The Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act (CVSSA) in 2010 which established security requirements and procedure for reporting crimes aboard cruise vessels. Under the act, cruise lines are required to immediately contact the nearest FBI office as soon as an incident has been reported. They are also responsible for filing a written report which must be kept in a log book to be made available by any law enforcement agency upon request.

The CVSSA required the United States Coast Guard to report annual crime statistics. However, they are only required to report closed criminal investigations. Last year, the Coast Guard reported 15 closed investigations. Of the 15 investigations, 11 involved sexual assault and battery investigations. Crew members working on board vessels were suspects in six of the criminal investigations. The International Cruise Victims Association was created to protect passengers who were victims of crimes. The chairman of the association, Kendall Carver, claims that the number of incidents reported is much lower than the incident that occur aboard cruise ships.

Carver, along with a Canadian professor, used the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to request criminal reports received by the FBI from cruise ships. The final report indicated that 151 reports of unwanted sexual contact were made by passengers an crew members. Of the reported incidents, 56 involved both passengers and crew members. While the number of crimes reported seems keep in mind that an approximately 17.2 million people traveled on North American based cruise lines last year. While crimes on cruise ships occur, proponents of the industry claim that cruise afford the safest of vacation destinations. Cruise goers are not a fair cross section of the population. The majority of the passengers travel as families and a large percentage are elderly. As such, there a very few incidents of violent crimes aboard cruise vessels.

The most recent event regarding cruise ship safety involved a sexual assault committed against an eleven-year-old girl aboard a Disney cruise ship while in port in Port Canaveral. The Port Canaveral police were not contacted until the following day. The ship had already sailed for the Bahamas. When the ship returned four days later, the crew member accused of the sex crime was sent back to India from the Bahamas and was never investigated for committing a crime. Disney claimed that the family declined to prosecute and that is why the crew member was sent back to India. Regardless of the victim's position, Carver and other watchdogs are still concerned with the lack of reporting of crime aboard cruise vessel. They believe that the industry is largely unmonitored and that a culture of "cover up" exists. The U.S. Senate Committee of Commerce, Science and Transportation recently sent letter to three cruise lines requesting reports on crimes such as homicides, theft and sex offenses. To date the cruise lines have not complied.

Cruise Ship Stats Aren't Smooth Sailing, Florida Today.com, June 9, 2013.

Former County Employees Arrested for Fraud

Tue, 04 Jun 2013 13:09:03 -0500

Two former county employees were arrested on fraud related charges. Police say the allegations stem from an over-billing scheme that has cost the tax payers of Miami-Dade County millions of dollars. An extensive investigation revolved around a company called Data Industries, Inc. that has received approximately $16 million in tax payer funds for contract work. Two former employees of the Miami-Dade County Internal Services Department, also known as the General Services Administration (GSA), were arrested Tuesday for their alleged involvement.

Jesus Pons, Diana Pons, and Bruno Diaz were arrested for racketeering, organized scheme to defraud and a variety of other white collar offenses. Law enforcement officials claim that Pons and Diaz received kickbacks for arranging the contracts which led to over-billing the county. The GSA is a Miami-Dade County Department responsible for building and property management along with real estate transactions. The original contract between GSA and Data Industries was for $760,000. At the end of the contract, Data Industries received $10.7 million from the county.

Because Pons and Diaz were employed by Miami-Dade County and the offense arose while performing their official duties, criminal lawyers from the public corruption unit at the state attorney's office will prosecute the case. The public corruption unit prosecutes public officials charged with criminal misconduct committed within their scope of employment. Both defendants were relived of their jobs soon after detectives executed search warrants at their places of employment.

The probe into the allegations began as a result of a subcontractor reporting suspicious activity. The subcontractor told investigators that pursuant to the contract Data Industries was supposed to charge the county $125 per hour. Instead the company was billing the county between $230 to $275 per hour. Other allegations of financial malfeasance was reported where individuals were being paid far more than they were entitled to under the contract. The Miami-Dade County State Attorney's Office takes public corruption cases seriously. Only the most experienced prosecutors are offered the opportunity to work in that highly specialized department.

Former Miami-Dade County Employee Arrested in Massive Overbilling Scheme, Miami Herald.com, June 5, 2013.

Hundreds of Arrests Made During Urban Beach Week

Wed, 29 May 2013 08:32:26 -0500

As is the case every year, thousands of vacationers and party goers attend Urban Beach Week. Of the thousands that attend, several hundred will spend one or two days of their vacation behind bars in the Miami-Dade County Jail. The overwhelming police presence and the zero tolerance policy netted 344 arrests on Miami Beach. Anyone arrested over the Memorial Day weekend should contact a Miami criminal lawyer as soon as possible. A qualified attorney will be able to discuss your options when defending a case in this county. In many instances, a case can be defended without requiring the presence of the person arrested. The money spent on airplane tickets and hotel rooms can be better used in the hiring of an attorney to defend the case. The fees for defending a criminal case will largely depend on two factors. The first factor to consider is whether the charges involve misdemeanors or felonies. Second, the complexity of the case will also be considered in determining the legal fees involved in defending the case.

The majority of the arrests during Urban Beach Weekend were for drug offenses, assault, battery and disorderly intoxication. While there are certainly more serious crimes, criminal convictions for minor offenses can cause everlasting consequences. Employment opportunities can be lost and immigration problems can arise if criminal matters, even minor ones are not handled appropriately. Possession of marijuana, cocaine and ecstasy are the most common drug offenses for which vacationers get arrested. Simple drug possession cases can be disposed of favorably and quickly with the right representation.

Violent offenses such as aggravated battery, aggravated assault, simple battery, and simple assault are not as easily defended as simple drug crimes. The outcome of these types of cases will be largely determined by injuries suffered by the alleged victim and the victim's willingness to cooperate on te criminal process. Anyone arrested for a felony or a misdemeanor will be required to appear in court at the arraignment. An arraignment is simple court proceeding where the prosecutor formally files the charges. Individuals that have been arrested that fail to appear at the arraignment will have arrests warrants issued for them. However, defendants are not required to appear at the arraignment if they retain counsel. As long as a lawyer files a notice of appearance on a person's behalf, the appearance at the arraignment can be waived.

After the arraignment, the case will be set for trial. The prosecution will be required to produce all police reports, statements provided by witnesses, and any forensic reports. While the case is pending trial, the discovery process will take place. In the State of Florida, Defendants charged with felony offenses are entitled by law to depose the witnesses involved in the case. The purpose of depositions is to learn what a potential witness will testify to during trial. In misdemeanor cases, a defendant must request permission from the court to dispose witnesses involved in the case. A defendant is also entitled to list witnesses that will testify on his or her behalf. Defense witnesses can be very important in cases to refute the testimony of state witnesses whether they are police officers or civilians. If a strong enough defense is presented to the prosecution, they will eventually dismiss the charges.

Urban Beach Week Comes to an End - Very Quietly, Miami Herald.com, May 27, 2013.

Dozens Arrested for Medicare Fraud in South Florida

Wed, 15 May 2013 11:46:26 -0500

Federal authorities arrested nearly 100 individuals across the country for their involvement in Medicare fraud. Twenty-five arrests were made in South Florida alone. Miami-Dade County is often considered to be the hotbed for healthcare fraud. Miami criminal lawyers have kept busy over the past few years representing clients arrested for Medicare fraud. The highest profile defendant arrested in the most recent sweep was Roberto Marrero, a Cuban born actor and businessman, who is accused of stealing millions of dollars from the federal healthcare program. Both Marrero and his wife were arrested for submitting $20 million in bills to Medicare. The bills were submitted to the program for home health care for diabetic patients. The indictment alleges that the treatments were either not necessary or never provided.

The federal investigation into Medicare fraud netted offenders from Miami to Detroit to
Los Angeles. Those arrested included doctors, nurses and clinic owners and operators. The total amount billed to Medicare by those arrested tallied approximately $223 million. Marrero allegedly began his Medicare scheme to defraud back in 2007. He is accused of using his ill-gotten gains to purchase high-end automobiles and to launch a cable TV station.

The agency responsible for the investigation and the arrests is the Medicare Fraud Strike Force. There are currently 9 regions in the United States under the watchful eye of federal investigators. Each region has its own strike force investigating cases of fraud. The president's administration has vowed to reduce the amount of healthcare fraud perpetrated in the country and claims to have improved the oversight of Medicare billing. The Medicare fraud crackdown has become a priority of the federal government as indicated by the press conference which was attended by the U.S. Attorney General and the Human Health Services Secretary.

Marrero, his wife and several other defendants made their first appearance in federal court on Tuesday. Some of the defendants were represented by privately retained attorneys. Those who cannot afford to hire private counsel will be appointed an attorney from the public defender's office or private counsel registered with the federal court to represent indigent defendants. The government is seeking pre-trial detention on the couple. Both defendants are entitled to a hearing before the magistrate presiding over the case in an effort to obtain a bond. The pre-trial detention hearing is essentially a bond hearing to determine if the defendants are eligible for a bond, an if so, the amount of the bond.

Marrero and his wife are accused owning and operating Trust Care Health Services from 2007 to 2010. The indictment accuses the couple of submitting false bills to Medicare for the treatment of approximately 700 homebound diabetic patients who could not provide insulin to themselves. The charges allege that many of the patients did not require treatment and in some cases treatment was never provided.. It is also alleged that the couple paid recruiters to find patients with Medicare cards. The federal government is trying to locate assets obtained from the illegal enterprise as part of an asset forfeiture action.

Ninety Arrested in South Florida Medicare Crackdown, Bradenton Herald.com, May 15, 2013.

Judge Overturns DUI Manslaughter Conviction

Mon, 06 May 2013 10:32:29 -0500

A Palm Beach County Circuit Court judge overturned a DUI manslaughter conviction as a result of juror misconduct. In 2012, Jon Goodman, a well-known multi-millionaire, was convicted after a jury trial of DUI manslaughter. The victim in the case, Scott Wilson, was a University of Central Florida graduate that was residing in Palm, Beach County at the time of his death. Roy Black, a well-known Miami criminal defense lawyer, took the lead in the case. Despite a creative defense, his client was convicted of DUI manslaughter.

It is alleged that Goodman left the International Polo Club after consuming numerous alcoholic beverages. After leaving the club, Goodman's Bentley crashed into Wilson's Hyundai, causing the vehicle to enter a drainage canal. Smith ultimately died as a result of drowning. Criminal investigators determined that Goodman's blood alcohol level was twice the legal limit of .08 in the State of Florida. Traffic crash re-constructionists determined that Goodman's vehicle ran a stop sign and then crashed into Smith vehicle. Goodman was charged with DUI manslaughter and vehicular homicide and assorted other offenses.

At some point after the conviction, the criminal attorneys representing Goodman became aware of juror misconduct. One of the jurors, Dennis DeMartin was involved in at least two instances of misconduct. First, he deliberately failed to disclose during jury selection that his wife had been previously arrested for driving under the influence (DUI). Secondly, he conducted a unauthorized alcohol consumption experiment in his own home during the pendency of the jury trial. That was enough for the circuit court judge who presided over the trial to grant Goodman a new trial. Judge Jeffrey Colbath stated, "The cumulative affects of DeMartin's antics transformed an imperfect but fair trial into a constitutionally impermissible proceeding. Every person charged with a crime deserves a fair trial with out the likes of Dennis DeMartin. To allow this conviction to stand...would erode the integrity of the legal system."

The victim's parents are disappointed with the overturning of the conviction, but have vowed to continue the pursuit of justice and prosecute the person allegedly responsible for their son's death. Despite the judge's ruling, prosecutors have a good shot at a second trial if a plea deal is not reached. As a high-profile media case with victim's that are dedicated to the cause, it is highly unlikely that a reasonable plea offer will extended to Goodman. Unless, there is a evidentiary problem with case, a second trial is certainly in the cards.

DUI manslaughter is obviously the most serious criminal traffic offense in the State of Florida. To prove the offense, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) a defendant was in actual physical control of the motor vehicle, (2) while in control of the vehicle, the defendant was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that his or her normal faculties were impaired or that the blood or breath alcohol level was .08 or more, and (3) the defendant's operation of the vehicle caused or contributed to death of the victim. DUI manslaughter is a second degree felony punishable up to 15 years in prison.

Palm Beach Polo Mogul's Conviction Overturned, Huffington Post.com, May 4, 2013.

Supreme Court Grants Immigration Relief

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:23:46 -0500

Despite the recent ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States denying the retro-activity in Padilla type cases, the high court ruled in favor of immigrants with minor marijuana offenses on their record. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court declared that a resident of the U.S. of Jamaican decent should not have been deported for a misdemeanor amount of marijuana. Criminal lawyers in Miami and across the nation will applaud the new ruling, but it is at most a consolation prize in light of the ruling that determined that Padilla would not apply retro-actively. The Supreme Court in Chaidez ruled that a defendant cannot withdraw guilty or no lo contendere pleas in cases that were resolved prior to March 31, 2010 even if they received affirmative mis-advise from their lawyer.

Adrian Moncrieffe resided in the United States since the age of 3. In 2008, Moncrieffe was pulled over by police officers in the State of Georgia. He was found to be in possession of approximately 1.3 grams of marijuana and charged with possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute. Moncrieffe entered a plea to the charge which amounted to a short period of probation with no jail time. In fact, he was eligible to have his case expunged once he had complied with all the conditions set out in the plea.

After completing his sentence, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) picked up Moncrieefe at his residence, incarcerated him and initiated deportation proceedings. After hearing arguments on the matter, the Supreme Court Justices ruled 7-2 that Moncrieffe should have had the opportunity to contest the deportation. The majority of the court found that possession of a small amount of marijuana is not an aggravated felony, and was therefore insufficient to permit automatic deportation. Criminal records involving aggravated felonies subject immigrants to deportation without exception. Misdemeanor amounts of marijuana allow for deportation, but in the majority of cases, immigrants are granted waivers under those circumstances.

Immigrants that are not U.S. citizens arrested for simple possession of marijuana should not entered a plea to the charge. While the punishment in the State of Florida for such an offense is typically time served, serious immigration consequences can arise from entering such a plea. While one conviction for simple possession can allow for a waiver in immigration court, a second conviction will subject someone to automatic deportation. Immigrants arrested and charged for simple possession should hire a qualified and experienced criminal defense attorney to contest the charge.

An experienced defense lawyer can often find defects in the case and file appropriate motions which may lead to a dismissal of the charge. If there are no defects ion the case, another option would be to enter a pre-trial diversion or pre-trial intervention program. In Miami, first-time offenders can enroll in the program and exchange for completing a drug class, the prosecution will dismiss the case. Entry into one of these program will have no negative immigration consequences because a defendant never enters a plea. The best advise is to seek counsel and avoid taking a plea at all costs. Remember there are options that may cost a little more up front, but will avoid a defendant from later facing deportation proceedings.

Court Limits Deportations Over Marijuana Crimes, Miami Herald.com, April 23, 2013.

Medicare Fraud Case Lands Three Family Members in Prison

Tue, 09 Apr 2013 11:19:10 -0500

Last Friday, in a federal courtroom packed with spectators and family members, a federal judge handed down lengthy prison sentences to three family members who were previously found guilty for their involvement in a multi-million Medicare fraud scheme. Antonio Macli, his son Jorge Macli, and his daughter Sandra Huarte, were all sentenced for their participation in healthcare fraud allegedly being committed at their clinic referred to as Biscayne Milieu. All three defendants appeared with their Miami criminal defense lawyers at the sentencing hearing. The defendants had been previously convicted by a jury in the Southern District of Florida.

U.S. District Judge Robert Scola handed down heavy sentences for the three defendants for running a Medicare fraud scam that received $11 million from the federally funded healthcare system. The patriarch of the family, Antonio Macli, received a thirty year sentence for his actions as the clinic owner. His son, Jorge Macli, received a 25 year sentence for his action s as the company's operating officer. Macli's daughter, Sandra Huarte received a 22 year sentence for her actions as the bookkeeper of the clinic. After Judge Scola pronounced the sentence, he told the defendants that their crime was committed in the healthcare fraud capital and that the scheme was multifaceted and complex. The judge was disturbed by the fact the defendants used vulnerable patients with substance abuse problems to line their own pockets.

In the summer of 2012, the defendants went to trial in an effort to be absolved from a healthcare fraud that billed Medicare an estimated $57 million. The bills submitted to Medicare were for mental health services that were not provided, or were provided, but needed. According to prosecutors, the scam occurred between 2007 and 2011. During that time, the clinic purportedly treated 1,100 patients supposedly diagnosed with mental disorders such as schizophrenia and bi-polar disorders. Five other individuals were convicted at the jury trial, including the clinic's medical director. The 72 year-old psychiatrist from Plantation, Florida received a 12 month prison sentence. Twenty other people were charged for their involvement in the fraud, all of which entered guilty pleas to limit their exposure.

Each of the Miami defense attorneys representing the defendants minimized their client's involvement in the Medicare fraud scheme. Despite the statements made on the defendants' behalf, Judge Scola lowered the boom on all three. After hearing evidence over a two month period, which involved testimony regarding the inner workings of the fraud and the kickbacks that were being paid to patient recruiters, the judge handed down a sentence that could be considered heavy-handed to some. Anyone being investigated by the federal authorities for Medicare fraud or anyone having already arrested charged for Medicare fraud should seek counsel with experience in federal court defending Medicare and healthcare fraud related cases.

3 Miami-Dade Family Members Get Long Prison Terms in Multi-Million Dollar Medicare Fraud Case, Miami Herald.com, April 5, 2013.

Supreme Court Finds Dog Sniff Unconstitutional

Tue, 02 Apr 2013 16:13:23 -0500

The Supreme Court of the United States finally handed down an anxiously awaited opinion regarding canine searches and the 4th Amendment. Most criminal defense attorneys in Miami, Florida and across the country waited to see how the Supreme Court would decide the matter. In a 5 to 4 decision, the high court decided that police officers cannot bring drug sniffing canines onto a person's property to search for drugs without first obtaining a warrant and that a dog's alert on the front porch is not sufficient in and of itself to merit the issuance of a warrant. The appellant in the case was charged with operating a marijuana grow house or in more common parlance trafficking in marijuana. The appellant, Joelis Jardines, was arrested and charged with multiple offenses involving marijuana trafficking.

On December 5, 2006, Miami-Dade narcotics detectives with special training in detecting marijuana grow houses received an anonymous tip regarding a residence being used to grow marijuana. Relying solely on the anonymous tip, a canine officer was summoned to the scene. The detective stood on the porch when his canine alerted to the front door of the residence. The alert by the canine along with the anonymous tip was enough for the narcotics detectives to obtain a search warrant. After returning with the warrant, a search of the residence revealed 179 marijuana plants growing inside the house. The street value of the marijuana seized was approximated to be worth $700,000. As a result of the search, Jardines was charged with marijuana trafficking and grand theft of electricity from FPL. His criminal attorney entered a not guilty plea on his behalf and filed a motion to suppress the marijuana as it was obtained through an illegal search.

The trial judge heard testimony from the prosecution and the defense and granted the motion to suppress. The state attorney's office appealed the decision which was reversed by the 3rd District Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court of Florida reversed the decision of the lower appellate court. The Supreme Court of the United States agreed with the Florida Supreme Court and found the search to be in violation of the 4th amendment. A number of dog sniff cases have been heard over the past couple of years. Most of the cases have been upheld contrary to the latest ruling. For example, canine sniffs are constitutional when checking automobiles or to search luggage in the airport.

Justice Antonin Scalia opined that the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from the government looking into their homes and in addition the area surrounding a home which is often referred to as a curtilage.

"The police cannot, without a warrant based on probable cause, hang around on the lawn or in the side garden, trawling for evidence and perhaps peering into the windows of the home," Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority. "And the officers here had all four of their feet and all four of their companion's, planted firmly on that curtilage -- the front porch is the classic example of an area intimately associated with the life of the home."

Drug Dog's Sniff is an Unconstitutional Search, Rules U.S. Supreme Court, Huffington Post, March 26, 2013.

Federal Public Defender's Offices Face Budget Cuts

Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:19:41 -0500

As federal budget cuts occur across the nation, the criminal justice system will not be able to avoid the same fate as other areas of government. Federal public defenders' offices all over the country are going to feel the impact of the mandatory budget cuts. Criminal lawyers employed by federal public defenders' offices claim the budget courts will cause staff reductions either by lay-offs or mandatory furloughs. Representatives of these offices say that the cuts and furloughs will cause cases to be delayed and the level of criminal representation will fall below the current standard. Both attorneys and support staff are either being laid off or are being forced to take off six or more weeks off without over the next half a year. A judge currently sitting on the Supreme Court of the United has expressed concerns that the criminal justice system could feel pressure as a result of the cuts.

The mandatory budget cuts are expected to slash 10% of the budgets of federal public defenders' offices. The United States Department of Justice have notified the offices of the potential cuts which have yet to take affect. U.S. District Judge Catherine Baker said that "It's important that people who don't have any power and any voice have people to speak for them." The cuts contravene the basic tenets set forth in United States Supreme Court case Gideon v. Wainwright. Fifty years ago the highest appellate court in the United States provided that criminal defendants be afforded a criminal defense lawyer in the event they could not afford one. Opponents of the cuts argue that the judicial system will get bogged down causing trials to be delayed and innocent people being convicted.

Some Miami criminal attorneys represent indigent defendants when the public defender's cannot due to conflicts of interest. As of yet, budget cuts have not impacted these lawyers that represent indigent clients. It is almost certain that the rates these lawyers bill will be cut as well. Potential budget cuts of this nature could cause these private attorneys to refuse to participate in the program. The same thing occurred a few years back in the state system when specially appointed public defenders had their rates cut to the point that the majority declined to continue representing indigent clients. Cuts of the nature could certainly bog down the criminal justice system in federal court.

Some federal courts have decided to reduce the number of days criminal cases are presented in court. These reductions come as a result of fewer public defenders and U.S. marshals being available for court. Representatives of the affected offices are also concerned that the budget cuts and furloughs will continue to get worse putting even more of a strain on the system. Staffing problems could become a concern as well, if support staff employees leave to find better paying jobs. While the level of the impact will be unknown for several months, the cuts are certainly going to have an adverse affect on the system.

Federal Defenders Face Deep Cuts, Delays in Cases,, Miami Herald.com March 24, 2013.

Dozens of Arrests Made at Ultra Music Festival

Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:21:53 -0500

Every year, the Ultra Music Festival comes to town. The festival has become so popular that it now extends over two weekends. Tourists and locals alike flock to the festival. Despite the festivities, dozens of people are arrested each year for numerous criminal offenses. Anyone arrested at the festival should immediately contact a Miami criminal lawyer to assist in defending the charges. The majority of the people arrested have no prior contacts with the criminal justice system. Anyone arrested at Ultra should not panic. Hiring the right Miami criminal law firm can mean the difference between having a criminal record or coming out the situation completely unscathed.

A total of 84 people were arrested last weekend at Ultra on a variety of charges. The most common criminal offenses are related to drugs and alcohol. Drug possession charges are felony offenses and can have a significant impact on a person's life. The most common controlled substances found at Ultra are ecstacy and LSD. Anyone arrested for possession of either of these narcotics can be arrested and charged with a third degree felony which is punishable up to five years in prison. While none goes to prison for possessing ecstacy or LSD, failure to properly handle a case could land a person a permanent criminal record or a year long stay in the drug court program. The other common offense is drunk and disorderly conduct. While the offense is only a misdemeanor, it can certainly impact a person's life, both personally and professionally.

Experienced and qualified Miami defense attorneys know the ins and outs of the criminal justice system in Miami-Dade County, Florida. This knowledge allows for creative solutions to resolve criminal charges with without a permanent criminal record or a year-long stint in the drug court program. Cases can often be disposed of without requiring a defendant to return to the jurisdiction. There are hundreds of criminal defense attorneys in Miami and the South Florida area. The hard part is figuring out which lawyer will provide the best result. Try to interview at least a couple of attorneys. If you are out of town, a phone consultation will have to suffice. Look at a law firms website to determine if the lawyer you hire is qualified and experienced enough to get the result you seek.

If you are loved one is arrested at the festival, don't freak out over the situation. Everything is fixable with the right person working for you. Anyone from out of town that is arrested can post bond and immediately return home as long as the offense allows for a bond without appearting a bond hearing. All drug possession and misdemeanor cases have standard bond amounts. A person can either pay the cash equivalent of the bond which will be returned at the conclusion of the case to the person who posted the bond. Alternatively, a person can pay a bondsman 10% of the bond amount to secure his or her release. Bondsmen sometimes require additional monies for out of town defendants as collateral. Sometimes it is better to contact a lawyer first who can secure a bondsman for only 10% of the amount of the bond. Remember, if arrested, don't panic, hire a good lawyer and your problem should soon go away. Once the case is closed, a record can be sealed or expunged which will leave no record of the arrest.

84 Arrested During First Weekend of Ultra Music Festival, NBCMiami.com, March 19, 2013.

Feds Arrest Cops for Identity Theft and Tax Refund Fraud

Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:20:25 -0500

Federal agents arrested two local police officers for identity theft and tax refund fraud. Both officers are accused of using the State of Florida driver's license data base to obtain names and personal information to commit the fraud. City of Miami Police Officers Malinsky Bazile and Vital Frederick, acting independently, got caught using the database to accumulate hundreds of names and associated personal information to file fraudulent tax returns. Bazile alone is accused of stealing $140,000 from the federal government that was meant to be returned to legitimate tax payers. Both defendants will appear this week with their respective Miami criminal lawyers for their bond hearings and arraignments. Both officers joined the City of Miami Police Department back in 2008. The arrests were made by the FBI and Miami police internal affairs detectives.

The arrests of these officers for identity theft and tax-refund fraud stem from the large scale investigation into an illegal gambling ring in Liberty City. In that investigation, officers were accused of providing protection for the gambling ring in exchange for money. Identity theft and tax-return fraud have become a big concern for law enforcement. It is a greater concern when police officers use their authority and access to public records to commit criminal offenses. Both officers are presumed innocent until they are found guilty by a jury or enter a plea. It is not clear how many state cases will have to be dismissed as a result of the alleged malfeasance.

The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida displayed disappointment and was quoted as saying, "To date, we have prosecuted Social Security office employees, hospital employees, clinic workers, former NFL players, gang members and violent criminals to name a few. Today, we sadly add law enforcement to the list of thieves." Bazile and Frederick are among the growing number of City of Miami police officers that have lost their jobs and are pending criminal charges. The entire investigation targeted officers working the Liberty City area. Both defendants are facing significant incarceration for the charged offenses. Their potential sentences will be determined by the federal sentencing guidelines which will take into account the number of victims and the amount of loss the federal government suffered. To make matters worse, both officers face a two year prison sentence for aggravated identity theft that will be stack on top of the sentence imposed by the federal judge presiding over the cases.

Over the past year, the federal government has indicted approximately 130 defendants accused of stealing more than $140,000,000 from the federal government. As the n umber of arrests grows, so does the sentences imposed in federal court for identity theft and tax-refund fraud. A defendant recently convicted of stealing more than $117,000 in tax refunds received a 16 year prison sentence. Assuming the officers do not cooperate with the federal government, they may even receive more time behind bars if convicted. Prosecutions for these types of offenses will continue until the Treasury Department can find a pro-active way of preventing the crime. South Florida is again on the radar screen as it is considered one of the capitals of this type of fraud.

Two Miami Police Officers Arrested on ID-Theft, Tax Refund Charges Linked to FBI Corruption Probe, Miami Herald.com, March 7, 2013.

Florida Judge Reverses Verdict in Sexual Predator Case

Mon, 04 Mar 2013 11:37:36 -0500

Defendants who were previously convicted of sexual motivated criminal offenses are subject to incarceration even after completing their sentences. Civil commitment pursuant to the 1998 Jimmy Ryce Act is a real possibility and allows for an indefinite period of incarceration for offenders labeled as sexual predators too dangerous to re-enter society after serving time in prison. As in criminal matters, defendants that qualify for civil commitment under the act are entitled to be represented by any Miami criminal lawyer of their choice. If a defendant cannot afford to retain a private criminal attorney, the Public Defender's Office will appoint a lawyer to defend the case. Defendants that are found to pose a danger to society upon their release by a jury are sent to the Florida Civil Commitment Center in Arcadia, Florida for an indefinite period of time.

Recently, a Miami-Dade County circuit court judge overruled a jury who decided that civil commitment was not appropriate. Juan Vega served 25 years in prison for several sexually motivated offenses such as sexual battery and kidnapping. Despite serving his sentence, Vega was held until a jury could determine whether or not he posed a threat to society upon being released from prison. Defendants sought to be held beyond their release date are entitled to a jury trial. In Vega's case, the jury decided that he would no longer pose a threat and decided against civil commitment. Vega's case is unusual because the judge disregarded the jury's verdict and decided that civil commitment was appropriate despite the finding.

The judge's ruling has angered criminal defense lawyers in Miami. It is the first time a circuit court judge in the State of Florida ordered civil commitment of a convicted sexual predator over a jury's non-commitment verdict. Now Vega's fate will be determined by an appellate court, most likely the 3rd District Court of Appeals. What caused the judge to overrule the jury? Apparently, the judge relied heavily on psychologists that evaluated Vega and found that there is a significant likelihood that he would re-offend if released from custody. Hundreds of Jimmy Ryce cases have been tried in the state. The majority of offenders have been committed, but some have prevailed. Of those released, some have become productive members of society, while others have re-offended and are spending the rest of their lives in prison.

Pursuant to the Jimmy Ryce Act, there are approximately 569 individuals being held in Arcadia in what is deemed to be civil confinement. Another 97 inmates in the state are awaiting the same type of trial that Vega just sat through. In Jimmy Ryce cases, the Florida Department of Children and Families evaluates all sexual predators set to be released from Florida prisons. If civil commitment is found to be appropriate for a particular defendant, he or she will be transferred to Arcadia, Florida pending a civil trial. After hearing testimony, a jury of six people must decide unanimously whether a defendant is a sexual violent predator who merits civil commitment by clear and convincing evidence for involuntary commitment to occur. If a majority feel commitment is appropriate, a judge will declare a mistrial and prosecutors can re-try the defendant. If the verdict is even or less than half decide that commitment is appropriate, the defendant should be released from custody.

Florida Judge's Decision in Sexual Predator Case Sparks Controversy, Bradenton Herald, March 4, 2013.

US Supreme Court Rules Before Florida Supreme Court on Retro-Activity of Padilla

Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:39:43 -0500

The United States Supreme Court has dashed the hopes of many illegal immigrants who are awaiting deportation or trying to obtain their residency. Miami criminal lawyers who represent clients in post-conviction relief matters have been anxiously awaiting the Florida Supreme Court to rule on the retroactivity of Padilla type cases, got their answer from the United States Supreme Court. The high court ruled 7-2 that immigrants cannot withdraw guilty or no lo contendere pleas in cases that were resolved prior to March 31, 2010. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that defense attorneys had an affirmative obligation to advise defendants of potential immigration consequences prior to entering a plea. If a defense lawyer failed to advise or provided affirmative mis-advice regarding the potential immigration consequences, such as deportation, a defendant was entitled to file a motion to vacate and re-open the case.

The Supreme Court in Chaidez ruled that the defendant, a lawful permanent resident since 1977, could not vacate her 2004 conviction for insurance fraud. The conviction will most likely lead to the denial of her continued residency and eventual deportation. Her motion to vacate was based on the fact that her defense lawyer at the time she took the plea did not advise her of the risks of deportation by entering the guilty plea. While the Supreme Court ruling in the Chaidez finally decided the retroactive question, that does not mean that a motion to vacate cannot be won in court. However, a successful motion to vacate will now largely be won based on negotiations and stipulations made with prosecutors, rather than based on the law.

The likelihood of a success ful motion to vacate no longer rests on the law, but must be argued on the equities. The success of a motion to vacate for immigrants being deported or unable to gain or maintain their residency and eventual citizenship will be determined by a number of factors. The first factor to consider is the jurisdiction where the plea was taken. In light the newest case, it is highly unlikely to find effective relief in federal court. Had Chaidez gone the other way in the Supreme Court, immigrants might have had a chance in district court. As far as state courts go, success will be determined by the policies of each particular state attorney's office in Florida. The Broward County State Attorney's Office has a firm policy against agreeing to vacate pleas. Miami-Dade County prosecutors seem to be much more flexible. Generally, an agreement to vacate a plea is left up to the division chief, or head prosecutor, in any particular courtroom. Some division chiefs are flexible, while others won't give you the time of day. In the end, an immigrants chances of obtaining his residency or averting deportation will in some aspects depend on the luck of the draw.

Now that the law has been handed down, what does it take to win motion to vacate? Assuming a particular division chief is willing to entertain a motion to vacate, an extensive mitigation packet will have to be compiled. Items that will be needed for the mitigation packet include tax returns, birth certificates, marriage certificates, and of course letters from various individuals explaining why a particular person should be permitted to remain in the United States. Anyone seeking to vacate a plea must retain a qualified criminal attorney experienced in handling these types matters. Any attorney who files a motion and expects to win before a judge has no clue what he or she is doing and will lose the motion. Hire a lawyer with a good track record when it comes to winning these types of cases.

Supreme Court Won't Extend 2010 Immigration Ruling, Reuters.com, February 26, 2013.

South Beach Bartender Charged with DUI Manslaughter

Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:23:08 -0500

The stakes went up in the case involving the South Beach bartender who allegedly killed a chef on his way to work. Karlie Tomica was originally arrested for leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death. After the blood alcohol level purportedly revealed a result three times the legal limit, Tomica was hauled back into to court where prosecutors from the Miami-Dade-County State Attorney's Office amended the information charging her with DUI manslaughter. The defendant appeared with her Miami criminal attorney who again entered a not guilty plea to the amended charging document and requested any additional evidence that the prosecution intends to use to prove the additional charges.

Miami Beach police believe that Tomica left her bartending job at Nikki Beach under the influence of alcohol and crashed into a 49 year-old chef, Stefano Riccioletti while he walking to work on Collins Avenue. Riccioletti was married with three children at the time of his demise. According to police reports, the vehicle that Tomica was operating struck Riccioletti causing his body to be thrown 30 feet from the point of impact. A witness that observed the accident called 911 and followed the defendant's vehicle 40 blocks to her Miami Beach apartment. Police later arrested her at her apartment for leaving the scene of an accident. She was not arrested for DUI manslaughter on the night of the incident as the police and prosecutors did not have the result of her blood alcohol level.

The allegations made by the police and the state attorney's office appear to make an open and shut case. DUI manslaughter cases are not as simple to prove as the media reports would have you believe. To prove DUI manslaughter, the prosecution must prove that the defendant was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle. The only viable witness that can apparently put Tomica behind the wheel of the vehicle of the accident is the witness that called 911 and followed her to her home. The mere identification of the vehicle is not enough. The witness must be able to identify her as the person behind the wheel. The accident occurred at night which would make the identification of the defendant while driving very difficult. The witness may have observed the defendant exit her vehicle at her condo which would make for a much more plausible identification. The defendant may have admitted to driving the vehicle after she was arrested a provided Miranda warnings. Only through the discovery process will her defense attorney be able to determine how the prosecution intends to prove actual physical control.

The prosecution also has to prove that Tomica was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that her normal faculties were impaired. The state can prove this element in one of two ways. They can show that her normal faculties were impaired by the results of field sobriety exercises or even by a actions, reactions, physical appearance at the time of her arrest, even in the event field sobriety exercises were not requested or not performed. Police officers can also testify that she had the odor of alcohol on her breath or blood shot eyes to prove impairment. The state will try to rely on the results of the blood alcohol level which is a far more objective test. The defense will have to hire a toxicologist to re-test the blood and to ensure that the blood was draw legally with a proper chain of custody.

The last hurdle the prosecution will have to overcome is the element of causation. They will have to prove that Tomica was the cause of the accident and not Riccioletti. The defense will have to hire an accident reconstruction expert to determine where the collision occurred and if in fact that the victim's action played a contributing role in the accident. To successfully defend DUI manslaughter cases, experts must be hired to establish a viable defense to this very serious charge. Tomica is facing up to 30 years in prison with 4 year minimum mandatory sentence. While that sentence is a worst case scenario, defendants charged with DUI manslaughter often serve terms of imprisonment. Depending on the strengths and weakness of the case, along with the input of the victim's next of kin, the state will make a plea offer down the road.. Only time will tell what that number will be.

"Party Princess" Karli Tomica Faces DUI Manslaughter Charge, ABC News.com, February 19, 2013.