Sandefer & Murtha Law Blog

Similar evidence ruled inadmissible in lewd and lascivious case

admin — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:28:18 +0000

Recently we were successful in our objections to exclude testimony and evidence on a charge of 2 counts of lewd and lascivious contact with a minor. The Judge ruled that statements sought to be introduced from people the minors had allegedly talked to about the alleged events were inadmissible. Additionally, the allegations of each minor could not be presented in the trial regarding the other’s allegations to bolster the others charge. This is a rare ruling in today’s legal climate, and we commend the Judge for making what we believe to be the proper legal ruling.

DUI developments

admin — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:12:19 +0000

April 23, 2008. Jury trial verdict of not guilty on a charge of DUI. The breath test results were previously suppressed on a motion filed that the deputy misinformed our client about the availability of a breath test versus a blood test. The suppressed breath reading was .16. The client did poorly on the field exercises (heel to toe, etc) but had some health issues which we were able to successfully argue before the jury.

Recent developments

admin — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:38:25 +0000

Man charged with 2 counts of capital sexual battery which crries a mandatory life sentence, and seven other felony counts: Charges reduced, sentenced to 10 years in prison followed by probation.

Commitment

admin — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:38:09 +0000

To be successful in this line of work an attorney has to be compassionate, non-judgmental by nature, recognize human frailty and faults, and deal with them. A good defense lawyer must be a good listener and instill confidence in the client that he is going to do his very best for him or her.

This is our commitment to which we re-commit ourselves to in this new year.

The system only works when an accused is represented as vigorously as the state or government is.

Best wishes for 2008

Larry and Curt

Pending motions to suppress breath test results

admin — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:37:54 +0000

In early March motions were heard in Pinellas County Court to suppress the breath test results on all test performed with the new Intoxilyzer 8000 machines in Pinellas County. Judge Donald Horrox is scheduled to rule on the motions in late March or early April 2008. The motions are based on similar motions granted in Leon County last fall. The motions state that the results of a breath can be influenced by the length of time a person blows in to the machine and the strength of the blow. In other words, the longer and stronger a person blows the higher the reading. Experts were presented who verified this problem in the machines. If the motions are granted it could affect most DUI cases in Pinellas County.

In late April Judge Horrox denied the motions on the breath machine. Certainly some of the cases will be tried and, if a loss occurs, an appeal on this suppression will follow. Unfortunately, the defense can not file an appeal before a trial. We are keeping tabs on the cases from Tallahassee in that regard. The fight continues.

Jurors asking questions…is that a good thing?

admin — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:13:16 +0000

As of January 1, 2008, Florida law now allows jurors to submit questions for the Judge to ask witness during a trial. The law applies to civil trials and allows the Judge in a criminal trial to use his or her discretion on whether to allow jurors to ask questions. This opens the door to new issues and potential problems in a criminal trial. What if a juror asks the obvious question of a criminal defendant, “have you ever done anything like this before?” or “Why didn’t you talk to the police?”. If the Judge tells the juror that the question will not be asked, that can leave a definite impression with the juror i.e. ‘he must have done it before’ or ‘there is some reason why they do not want us to know the answer’.

Also, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. If the prosecutor does not ask a critical question and something is left usanswered, a juror can fill in the information. The burden is no longer on the state. Matters of strategy such as which witness to ask a question to, or knowing that one witness does not know the answer to a question while another one does, can affect the way a trial proceeds and a lawyers credibility if the lawyer tries to bring out something through cross examination of one of the state’s witnesses only to have a juror ask an earlier witness a question which defeats the whole line of questioning, or at least puts the prosectution on notice as to what needs to be asked.

Note taking will also be allowed as of January 1, 2008 by jurors. As with questioning, this will be discretionary in criminal trials. Note taking in criminal trials is concerning since it may take the juror’s attention away from watching a witness on the stand as he testifies. Thus, the juror could miss crucial facial expressions and motions which would help them in determining if a witness is telling the truth. In a criminal trial where the accusing witness is the main witness this could be critical.

Of course, there may be benefits to note taking also. If several jurors take notes and take them down differently, they may not be able to agree on what was said or what happened and it may open the door to arguing that the facts are not proven, that there is a reasonable doubt.

We will soon see what the new law will bring. Last year the legislature took away the right of the defendant to have last closing argument. The State always goes last now. The battle for rights and justice continues

Recent case events

admin — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:14:51 +0000

Recent events:

DUI reduced to Reckless driving.

Capital sexual battery mandatory life sentence plus other felonies, charge reduced, sentenced to 10 years prison and probation.

Drug trafficking charge reduced, mandatory prison sentence deleted.

Bad stop results in dismissal of Felony DUI, New trial granted due to improper comment by prosecutor, and more appellate opinions

admin — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:30:34 +0000

Click on BLOG ROLL to the right of page for more.

Breath test suppressed

admin — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:02:11 +0000

This month several motions to suppress evidence are scheduled to be heard. Motions are scheduled regarding bad stops, illegal searches, and other evidentiary issues. Recently, we were successful in having the breath test results on a pending case held inadmissible due to improper information being provided by the police about the non-availability of a blood test to confirm or reject the breath test.

This is our first post.

Our blog page is brand new, so please bear with us as we try it out and begin to add information that may be of value to you.