May 19, 2012

You are here: Home / Archives for attorney

Homicides: What Do Criminal Attorneys Say?

February 14, 2012 By Leave a Comment

By Alice M Shown -

With the increase in the number of criminal murders in all major cities of the world, it is essential that we acquaint ourselves with the legal aspects of such cases. How many of us are familiar with the term homicide and the different types of homicides as recognized by the governments all across the United States? Let us take a quick look at the entire chapter of facts that this one word ‘homicide’ covers.

Firstly, most of the murders that we come across in daily news are legally termed as homicides. Theoretically, ‘homicide’ means the killing of one person due to another person or human. Practically, it means the killing of one person by the act or negligence of another person. Homicides are not always criminal in nature as there are many killings that occur in self defense.

For homicide to be criminal, the person who commits the act must have intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently caused the death of another person. In order to have a clear idea of the different types of homicides that most state laws recognize it is important to acquaint oneself with the classification of homicides involving the most complex grading system used in any area of criminal law.

According to this unique classification, lower the degree of homicide, the higher is the level of punishment. The different degrees are discussed in the list below.

  • First degree homicide or murder: It is the calculated act of killing a person undertaken with malice aforethought. Most of criminal murders fall in this category. Many times certain aggravating factors are detected in these cases which earn higher levels of punishment. Such factors are killing of a police man or child, multiple homicides and more. First degree homicide is considered a capital offence in most states and the convicted is punishable with death penalty or life in prison without parole.
  • Second degree homicide or murder: Criminal murders deemed less severe than first degree murder fall in this category. The distinction between first degree and second degree is made by state and circumstances during the time of killing and depends on the prosecutor’s discretion mainly. In general, any killing committed with malice without any premeditation or deliberation would be considered in this category.
  • Manslaughter or Third Degree homicide: This is considered a less severe crime as it is caused without any deliberation and is mostly found in cases of careless or reckless use of a vehicle, firearm, animals, medicine and the like.

The many details of criminal laws governing homicides are best dealt with experienced criminal attorneys. Phoenix has the unique privilege of availing the services of The Law Offices Of Kevin Breger, PLLC, who have maintained excellent track records in handling criminal cases of all types in the area. You can take the help of their expert set of criminal attorneys by making a call at the number provided at their website.

DUI Attorney Phoenix – Phoenix DUI/DWI lawyer best possible solutions to people who have been arrested for drunk driving in Phoenix, Arizona (AZ) area.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Alice_M_Shown
http://EzineArticles.com/?Homicides:-What-Do-Criminal-Attorneys-Say?&id=5857721

 

 

Filed Under: Criminal Court Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Understanding Burglary Charges

October 26, 2011 By Leave a Comment

By Andrew Sarski -

If someone is arrested and charged with burglary in Arizona, he or she faces a serious legal situation that could result in many years in prison if the defendant is convicted. There are many different types of burglary charges in existence. Building a solid defense against burglary charges will require the help of skilled and experienced criminal defense attorneys.

Burglary Charges

When speaking strictly of burglary, there are three laws that speak specifically to this term, and their text appears below:

First degree burglary – A person is guilty of first degree burglary if he or she:

  1. Entered or remained unlawfully in or on a residential structure; and
  2. Did so with the intent to commit any theft or felony therein, and
  3. Entered with or possessed therein a firearm or explosive.

Second degree burglary – A person is guilty of second degree burglary if he or she:

  1. Entered or remained unlawfully in or on a residential structure; and
  2. Did so with the intent to commit any theft or felony therein.

Third degree burglary – A person is guilty of third degree burglary if he or she:

  1. Entered or remained unlawfully in or on a nonresidential structure or in a fenced commercial or residential yard with the intent to commit any theft or any felony therein.
  2. Made entry into any part of a motor vehicle by means of a manipulation key or master key, with the intent to commit any theft or felony in the motor vehicle.

Penalties Associated with Burglary Convictions

Basically, a person convicted of a burglary charge is almost always considered a convicted felon absent some sort of negotiation or special circumstances. What this means is that the convicted defendant will likely face a minimum of one year and a maximum of several years in state prison if he or she is found guilty. The exact amount of years involved depends on several factors, including the facts of the case and the defendant’s criminal record.

Building a Solid Defense

Of course, one needs to remember that in order for the prosecution to obtain a conviction, every element of the statute that the defendant is charged of breaking must be proven. A solid defense team will force the prosecution to meet that burden and prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. You need a solid defense against any and every charge the District Attorney charges you with. Contact an Arizona defense lawyer at Phillips & Associates today to schedule an initial consultation.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Andrew_Sarski
http://EzineArticles.com/?Understanding-Burglary-Charges&id=2453584

 

 

Filed Under: Criminal Court Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Police Power Expanded As Miranda Warnings Are Scaled Back

September 14, 2011 By Leave a Comment

By Michael S Baker -

Recently in Maryland v. Shatzer, the United States Supreme Court held that invoking the Miranda right to counsel does not bar all further questioning. The police may question the suspect again, and without counsel present, as long as they wait until 14 days after the suspect has been released from police questioning.

The Miranda Case

“You have the right to an attorney.” These words signify more than the final scenes of popular television police shows; they are part of a carefully prescribed measure to protect the constitutional rights of suspects.

In 1966, in Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court acknowledged the “inherently compelling pressures” suspects face when interrogated while in police custody. In order that the coercive pressure not overwhelm the suspect’s Fifth Amendment rights, the Court established the rule that police officers must notify suspects of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present.

The suspect may then:

  • Invoke the right to remain silent, in which case the interrogation must end
  • Invoke the right to an attorney, in which case the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present
  • Waive both rights; provided that the waiver is knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and questioning may continue

The Edwards Case

In 1981, the Court added another layer of protection for suspects, addressing attempts at subsequent interrogation. In Edwards v. Arizona, the Supreme Court stated that once a suspect has invoked the right to counsel, that suspect “is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.”

The court reasoned that if the authorities are allowed to make subsequent inquiry, any waiver obtained would be the product of the “inherently compelling pressures” and therefore not voluntary.

The Shatzer Case

In February 2010, the Supreme Court revisited the issue of requestioning in Maryland v. Shatzer. In 2003, police were investigating Michael Shatzer, who was in prison for a prior conviction. When a police detective tried to question Shatzer, he invoked his right to an attorney. The interview was stopped and Shatzer returned to prison.

In 2006, another detective reopened the case. He read Shatzer his Miranda rights again and this time Shatzer waived his rights and incriminated himself. Shatzer then claimed the statements could not be used at trial because he should not have been requestioned without an attorney present after he invoked his right to counsel in 2003. The state countered that requestioning was not prohibited because there was a break in custody for Miranda purposes.

Requestioning After Break in Custody

The Supreme Court explained the danger the Edwards decision was intended to avoid was suspects’ losing a sense of control when held in continuous custody and repeatedly questioned despite a request for counsel. Therefore, the Court saw little risk that a subsequent waiver would be coerced when the suspect was first released from pretrial custody and given time to return to normal life.

Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, expressed distaste for deterring voluntary confessions, an “unmitigated good.” The Court concluded that Miranda protections are sufficient even when the suspect has requested an attorney and is later reinterrogated without an attorney present, so long as there is a break in custody long enough to dissipate the coercive effects of being in custody.

Length of Break in Custody

Rather than deciding only the question before it – whether two and a half years was a sufficient break in custody – the Court took an unusual step in setting a precise length of time required for a break. The Court stated that 14 days provides plenty of time to reacclimatize to normal life, consult with family and counsel, and eliminate the coercive effects of being held in custody.

What Constitutes a Break in Custody?

Additionally, the Court addressed whether Shatzer’s return to prison amounted to custody for Miranda purposes. The Court answered that lawful imprisonment resulting from conviction does not present the coercive pressures of Miranda custody.

When imprisoned suspects are released from questioning, they return to their accustomed environment and routines, with the same amount of control over their lives that they had prior to interrogation. Continued detention is not dependent upon the questioning, so the Court found the compelling pressures of custody end with release back to the general prison population.

The Effects of Shatzer

Even if a suspect requests counsel, the police may make subsequent attempts at questioning without a lawyer present as long as they wait 14 days between attempts. The Court left open how long these 14-day-spaced attempts could be ongoing.

An experienced attorney can protect suspects’ rights throughout the investigation up to trial by advising suspects of their right to counsel during any police questioning.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Michael_S_Baker
http://EzineArticles.com/?Police-Power-Expanded-As-Miranda-Warnings-Are-Scaled-Back&id=6046580

 

 

Filed Under: Criminal Court Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Arizona Murder Charges

August 22, 2011 By Leave a Comment

By Andrew Sarski -

There is no crime more serious in the eyes of the law in any jurisdiction than murder, and Arizona is no different. Murder creates a public outrage, and as a result of this pressure, the state legislature has historically added extremely tough language to the statutes that govern the different types of murder charges, most significantly in terms of the punishments available to the court upon a conviction.

Below is a brief overview of the different homicide charges in Arizona. If you face such a charge, contact a criminal defense attorney immediately to schedule a consultation. You will need a game plan.

Homicide Charges in Arizona

Below is a brief list of the different homicide charges in Arizona:

First Degree Murder – A person commits first degree murder if:

1. Intending or knowing that the person’s conduct will cause death, the person causes the death of another person, including an unborn child, with premeditation or, as a result of causing the death of another person with premeditation, causes the death of an unborn child.

Second Degree Murder – A person commits second degree murder if without premeditation:

1. The person intentionally causes the death of another person, including an unborn child or, as a result of intentionally causing the death of another person, causes the death of an unborn child.

Manslaughter – A person commits manslaughter by:

1. Recklessly causing the death of another person; or

2. Committing second degree murder as defined in section 13-1104, subsection A upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion resulting from adequate provocation by the victim; or

3. Intentionally aiding another to commit suicide;

Penalties

Clearly, the worse the offense upon which the defendant is convicted, the more serious the punishment will be. For instance, if a person is convicted of first degree murder, the death penalty is available for prosecutors. Otherwise, the defendant could face life in prison without the possibility of parole if convicted of murder.

In terms of manslaughter, the convicted defendant could face up to 21 years in prison if convicted, and a defendant almost never walks away without prison time attached to a conviction in Arizona.

What to do Next

Obviously, if you are facing any sort of homicide charges in Arizona, you need to act immediately to protect yourself, as you could face a lifetime of consequences. Contact the criminal defense attorneys at the law firm of Phillips & Associates today to schedule an initial consultation.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Andrew_Sarski
http://EzineArticles.com/?Arizona-Murder-Charges&id=2453757

 

 

Filed Under: Criminal Court Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Right to Counsel – Sixth Amendment and Critical Stages

August 19, 2011 By Leave a Comment

By Ken LaMance -

Introduction

In a criminal setting, it is commonly known that the accused has a legal right to be represented by an attorney. However, it is probably not as well known that the right to an attorney is limited and only exists during certain phases of a criminal proceeding called “critical stages”. The general right to an attorney is called the “Right to Counsel” and is provided for in the 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution. “Counsel” simply refers to a lawyer or lawyers conducting a case in a court of law.

The 6th Amendment right to counsel should not be confused with the right to an attorney provided in the 5th Amendment. The 5th Amendment deals with Miranda Warnings, which are popularized in the phrases recited by policemen upon arresting a suspect: “You have the right to remain silent…Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law…You have the right to an attorney”. The 5th Amendment right applies to police custodial interrogations, while the 6th Amendment right deals with proceedings after formal charges have been filed by the state.

The 6th Amendment right to counsel is very broad and includes such matters as effectiveness of counsel and representing one’s self. This article focuses mainly on the differences between 5th and 6th amendment rights, as well as the critical stages during which the right to counsel may be invoked.

Differences between 5th Amendment and 6th Amendment Rights

As mentioned above, the Constitution provides for the right to an attorney in both the 5th Amendment and the 6th Amendment. There are significant differences between the two.

5th Amendment rights

Under the 5th Amendment, the right to an attorney applies only during a custodial interrogation by the police. A custodial interrogation means that the person is being held in custody by the police for the purposes of interrogation. An example of a custodial interrogation is when a person is detained at the police station for investigation of a crime.

The purpose of the 5th Amendment right is to allow the suspect to consult with an attorney even though formal charges have not been brought, and no arrest has yet been made. (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 [1966]).

During a custodial interrogation, the police are required to recite the Miranda Warnings mentioned above in order to inform the suspect that they are in fact being held in custody for an interrogation. Once the Miranda warnings are read or recited to the suspect, the person may decline to speak by stating that they wish to have a lawyer present. This is called “invoking the 5th Amendment right to an attorney”.

Once the person invokes the 5th Amendment right to an attorney, the police cannot question them any further until a lawyer is present.

6th Amendment Rights

On the other hand, the 6th Amendment “right to counsel” applies after the suspect has already been booked, and formal charges have already been issued against the accused.

The right to counsel “attaches” when formal criminal adversarial proceedings have been initiated (begun), although it only may be invoked at certain points of the proceedings called “critical stages”. (Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 106 S. Ct. 477, 88 L. Ed. 2d 481 [1985]).

The purpose of the 6th Amendment right to counsel is to ensure that the accused is adequately protected by a lawyer in an adversarial setting. The key word to remember is “adversarial”, meaning that the accused is being confronted by either the opposing party or a state official such as a prosecutor or a judge.

Another major difference between the two rights is that the 5th Amendment right is not offense-specific, while the 6th Amendment right is offense-specific. This means that, during a custodial interrogation, if the suspect invokes the Miranda right, the police may not question them at all, even about different crimes. Under the 6th Amendment right, state officials may not question them about the crime they are being charged for, but they can question them about other crimes.

Critical Stages- Initiation of Criminal Proceedings

The Supreme Court case United States v. Hidalgo, 7 F.3d 1566 [11th Cir. 1993] sets forth a basic definition of a critical stage: “A critical stage of prosecution includes every instance in which the advice of counsel is necessary to ensure a defendant’s right to a fair trial or in which the absence of counsel might impair the preparation or presentation of a defense” (United States v. Hidalgo, 7 F.3d 1566 [11th Cir. 1993]).

The first adversarial setting that an accused typically encounters is the initiation (beginning) of formal criminal proceedings. The case Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 names the following situations as instances that initiate criminal proceedings.

  • Appearance in front of a judge for the purpose of issuing formal charges
  • Preliminary hearings
  • Indictments (this is where formal charges are brought against the accused in front of a grand jury)
  • Information (this is like an indictment only it is written and presented by a public official rather than a grand jury)
  • Arraignments

These phases of trial are considered to be “critical stages”, and the accused definitely has the right to counsel during these stages. Also, it is at this point that the right to counsel is said to “attach”, meaning that the accused can now claim their right to counsel. Take note that the initial appearance in court wherein the judge simply informs the accused of their charges and rights is not a critical stage.

Other phases of trial that courts have identified as critical stages are: pretrial hearings related to bail, the suppression of evidence, or the viability of the prosecution’s case(Smith v. Lockhart, 923 F.2d 1314 [8th Cir. 1991]).

“Noncritical stages”-phases of trial during which the accused does not have the right to counsel

There are several phases of trial proceedings that are not considered to be critical stages. Courts refer to these as “noncritical stages”, and the accused does not have the right to have counsel present during them. This is because they are considered to be preliminary matters that are unassociated with the more adversarial phases of prosecution. Examples of noncritical stages are:

� Fingerprint taking and analysis

� Investigative lineups

� Photographic identifications

� Taking samples of blood, clothing, hair, handwriting, or voice samples

� Hearings to determine the existence of probable cause

� Recesses during defendant’s testimony

� Proceedings regarding parole and probation issues

� Post-conviction proceedings

Again, the basic rationale is that such procedures are more administrative and lack the confrontational aspect that requires a lawyer. In other words, absence of an attorney at noncritical stages is not likely to impair the defendant’s right to fair trial or presentation of a defense.

Finally, in misdemeanor cases, the right to counsel is only granted if imprisonment has been imposed on the person. Thus, if the punishment for a misdemeanor crime involves only a fine, then the right to counsel does not attach. The right to counsel is available in all felony cases.

Remedy for violation of Right to Counsel

Denial of counsel during a critical stage has monumental effects on the outcome of the case. This may happen if the accused requests a lawyer during a critical stage, but the court denies or ignores their request. The Supreme Court has held that such denials are an unconstitutional deprivation of a fair trial. (United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 104 S. Ct. 2039, 80 L. Ed. 2d 657 [1984]).The remedy for denial of counsel is that the conviction must be reversed.

Waiver/replacement of counsel

Defendants also have a 6th Amendment right to decline representation by a lawyer and represent themselves in court. Self-representation is also known as pro se representation. The court is required to allow pro se representation, but only if the defendant makes a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel. Also, the court must inform the person of the potential disadvantages of pro se representation. The defendant must understand that pro se representation involves not only persuasion, but includes knowledge of legal theories and proper court procedures.

Conclusion

Of course, all stages of a criminal trial are important in determining the outcome of the case. However, courts have decided that some phases of trial are “critical”, in the legal sense that they require the presence of a lawyer. It is important to remember that while the right to counsel is a guarantee, it only applies to critical stages wherein the defendant faces an adversarial setting and are at risk of an unfair trial if unrepresented. If you feel that you have been denied the right to counsel during a critical stage of a trial, you may have further legal resource for your case.

Please contact LegalMatch.com for more information on securing an attorney.

Ken LaMance is the Corporate Counsel at LegalMatch, an online client-lawyer matching company based out of San Francisco, California. LegalMatch is fast, free, and confidential. LegalMatch is America’s original attorney/client matching service and is not a referral service. When a consumer presents their issue to LegalMatch, our system matches the consumer’s case to LegalMatch lawyers in their city or county based on the specifics of the consumer’s case, lawyer’s location, and area of legal practice. LegalMatch also offers a number of useful resources like an online law library, tips, law blog, and forums on nearly every topic.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Ken_LaMance
http://EzineArticles.com/?Right-to-Counsel—Sixth-Amendment-and-Critical-Stages&id=4105173

 

 

Filed Under: Criminal Court Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Child Custody For Fathers to Help Dads in Their Case

June 22, 2011 By Leave a Comment

By Justin DiMateo -

“Custody for Fathers: A Practical Guide Through the Combat Zone of a Brutal Custody Battle” is a book completed by an experienced family law attorney Michael Brennan focused on the area of child custody.

Reviews coming in for this book claim that finally a well written book made for fathers combating their ex-spouse for child custody has arrived. It offers a positive, hand-holding strategy to give dads the additional self-confidence to do the right thing. The details given are such that you are instructed on the proper body language for the courtroom.

Some dads are mistaken in the thinking that if you permit the mom to have 100% or full custody that they can return later in a couple of years and get joint custody, but this is far from the truth as it is a rare occurrence.

It is vital that fathers establish themselves prior to acquiring custody. The moment you lose custody, your chances of maintaining an active role in your child’s life decrease. Allowing full control by your ex-spouse can be tragic if the divorce was combative since it is well documented with cases whereby mothers have brainwashed their kids against their father.

Do you really want your ex-wife to control all the major decisions and factors of your child’s life that a Dad should do or customarily does.

When it comes to acquiring child custody from a divorce and fighting for the optimal interest of your children, you have to put up a mighty forceful fight. There is no area for doing it half-way for lack of knowledge. The old adage of knowledge is power definitely applies. Wouldn’t you as a Dad like to teach more adages to your child?

It is mistakenly thought that dads can easily gain either sole or joint custody of their children. This is not true. And this book emphasizes the significance of getting a successful child custody strategy in place in the beginning. If this is done half-way, to put it lightly, then it is very hard to modify the current agreement, especially if it was inserted by the court from the collapse of the parent’s relationship.

It is important for fathers to completely know how the legal system operates, how the child custody laws are different in various states and how to do the best they possibly can when custody analyzing is being performed.

Another testimonial from a reviewer, “I feel confident that the information in this book will assist me in raising my chances at a minimum of being able to spend time with my child, counter-acting the negative efforts of the mom. The book is without a doubt worth the minor investment and time to be able to spend time with your child.

Justin suggests you get this book and choose a lawyer who specializes in the field and get yourself informed thoroughly.

Find a child custody lawyer to help your cause and remain present on your child’s life.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Justin_DiMateo
http://EzineArticles.com/?Child-Custody-For-Fathers-to-Help-Dads-in-Their-Case&id=3537957

 

 

Filed Under: Child Custody, Family Court Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Child Custody Law – The Role of the Guardian Ad Litem For the Minor Child in Family Court

May 11, 2011 By Leave a Comment

By David Slepkow -

In Rhode Island (RI), A guardian ad litem is a individual who represents the hypothetical best interest of the minor child in a child custody, visitation or other type of Family Court case. The Guardian is not a lawyer for the minor child!

Guardians are frequently used in in contentious custody cases when the parties can afford the additional expense.The judge could make an appointment or the parties can agree to a guardian being appointed. If the parties cannot afford a guardian, the court can have Rhode Island Family Services do a home study and investigation for free.

A guardian is typically an attorney / lawyer who has been certified by the Family Court. They are required to get certified by the Court after hours of training. They could also be a psychologist or psychiatrist. It is very expensive. Usually, both parties pay 1/2 of the expense. However, if one party has substantially more resources then the other party then that person may be ordered by the judge to pay up to 100 percent of the cost. If one person conduct caused the need for the guardian or is at fault they could be ordered to pay up to 100 percent of the cost.

A retainer usually averages between $2,000 to $4,000 depending upon the complexity of the case. This can be very difficult to afford in a Rhode Island divorce or custody case because both parties are paying their RI divorce attorney / lawyer.

In complex cases involving lots of evidence, witnesses and complexities, a guardian may cost substantially more then $4000. They bill on an hourly basis ranging between $150 to $250 an hour.

A guardian does not make the final decision as to which parent shall get physical placement or legal custody of the child. The judge makes the final decision regarding custody, visitation and physical placement / possession after hearing testimony at trial or hearing. The guardian drafts a report to submit to the Court with his or her findings and recommendations.

A Guardian ad Litem could be appointed in a dcyf case, divorce case, visitation case, custody case or other type of Family Court action.

The Guardian interviews both parents and interviews other witnesses involved in the childrens life such as teachers, social workers, guidance counselors, psychologists, psychiatrists, grandparents, aunts etc. The Guardian will have full access to medical records related to the child and perhaps the parents. He will have access to education, religious and other records related to the child. The amount of witnesses interviewed sometimes depends on whether the parties can afford additional work.

The guardian typically interviews the minor children about their opinions concerning legal custody, placement and visitation. The older the child is the more weight the he or she will give to the childrens preferences regarding custody or visitation.The guardian can recommend that other professionals get involved such as licensed clinical social workers, and psychologists.

Even though the judge makes the final decision regarding placement, legal custody and visitation, in reality the guardian’s report usually decides the issues. The judge typically adopts the recommendations of the Guardian. Both parties have the right to call the guardian as a witness and challenge the opinions and the basis of those opinions.

However, judges typically get frustrated by anyone who challenges the recommendations. It is extremely difficult to get a RI Family Court judge to not adopt the recommendations.

David Slepkow is a Rhode Island lawyer concentrating in divorce, family law, restraining orders, child support, custody and visitation. David Slepkow has been practicing for over 12 years and is licensed in Rhode Island , Massachusetts and Federal Court. Free initial consultations. Credit Cards Accepted. Evening appointments available.

You can contact attorney David Slepkow by going to Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer

Also please visit: East Providence RI divorce Attorney

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=David_Slepkow
http://EzineArticles.com/?Child-Custody-Law—The-Role-of-the-Guardian-Ad-Litem-For-the-Minor-Child-in-Family-Court&id=3047571

Filed Under: Child Custody, Family Court Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Blood Testing Is About More Than A Machine

February 5, 2011 By

In DUI cases, an accurate blood test result requires more than just the blood tester to be working properly. A reliable test results requires more than than what the machine (the blood tester) provides.  As shown below, see the machine is just a fraction of the process need to obtain an accurate and reliable result.

BLOOD TESTING IN ARIZONA DUI CASES

Usually the government only puts safeguard in place to prevent machine errors.  Consequently the majority of the blood testing process will go unchecked and subject to human error.       

 

Filed Under: DUI Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Divorce and Family Court Issues

December 10, 2010 By Leave a Comment

By Chris Grifin -

Family court has jurisdiction over family disputes. If you and your spouse decide to get divorced but cannot come to an agreement on certain issues, you may have to settle the matter in court. You should hire a divorce law firm to guide you through the divorce process. One of the reasons family court is important is because it protects the welfare of children.

Why you should choose an attorney

Family issues like divorce and child custody can be sensitive. A lawyer who specializes in family law can offer you divorce advice in White Plains.

Additionally, you should choose an attorney for the following reasons:

• Understanding: Your attorney has significant experience with matrimonial and family law and understands your situation. Also, your lawyer can offer you personal legal service and guidance to help you find closure.

• The law is complicated: Legal issues can be complex and overwhelming. An experienced divorce law firm can explain family law and legal procedures.

• Your lawyer will fight for you: A lawyer can make sure your voice is heard and that the issues you are concerned with are discussed.

What happens in family court

If you are thinking about a separation or divorce, you should seek able counsel as quickly as possible. After you file a petition, and your spouse receives a summons, you attend court. You can avoid going to family court if you and your spouse can agree on issues like marital assets, child custody, and visitation.

The following cases may be dealt with in family court:

• Divorce

• Custody

• Alimony

• Adoption

• Domestic violence

A seasoned law firm understands that divorce can be a delicate matter. If you are

in need of competent legal help or a divorce mediator, do not delay in contacting an divorce attorney.

While this article is intended to provide helpful information, it is not meant to constitute legal advice.

Since a divorce is an emotional and physical moment for everyone, only an experienced divorce lawyer can assist you through all aspects of family law. A legal separation is always a good alternative for couples that are not certain about the divorce.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Chris_Grifin
http://EzineArticles.com/?Divorce-and-Family-Court-Issues&id=4070882

Filed Under: Child Custody, Family Court Tagged With: , , , , , ,

The Dirty Little Secret (of Arizona DUI First Offense)

August 25, 2010 By

Here is the math used in Arizona: INCREASED JAIL + DUI PROBLEM = REDUCED DUI PROBLEM.  It makes perfect sense, right.  Who would risk more than a month in jail for a few drinks.  

Apparently - lots of people.  Maybe even more people now, than when the penalties were previously lower.  Unfortunately the State's math is flawed.  Let me give you some anecdotal evidence.

A few weeks ago I was sitting in an arraignment with a client waiting for our case to be called.  Before the judge started calling cases he told the packed court room about Arizona's DUI penalties.  After going through the sentencing schemes he also made the following disclosure in open court. He stated, these DUI penalties have become harsher and harsher ever since he had been practicing law (and by grey color of his remaining hair that appeared to be a long time). "However, my courtroom still stays full." He went on to say that "we all know" the new DUI penalties have not reduced the number of DUI cases but it is the law.  "Fair or not these are the laws I am required to follow."

Well it is not everyday a judge, in open court, makes such a candid admission.  Moreover, the judge's speech was absolutely correct about the Arizona DUI laws.  Those of who are involved in Arizona DUI cases, "all know" the math is wrong.  We all know, law enforcement included, raising penalties does not reduce the number DUI cases.  One reason is the real consequence of a DUI is not jail, but taking someone's life.  If that is not enough to stop someone from driving impaired, then long jail terms that no person really knows the specifics of (until after they are charged), certainly will not have a great impact.

However, I have an idea of what may work.  In part two of this post I make my case for how I believe we should address the problem.  That is, if we are serious about solving it - which I hope we are.


Lawrence Koplow

Filed Under: DUI Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
« Older Posts