INTRODUCTION
As you’ve likely heard, President Trump has alleged that the 2020 election was stolen from him and was filled with fraud. As you’ve also likely heard, Trump has filed a number of lawsuits in an attempt to overturn the election. Many are wondering whether Trump will be successful. The straight answer: Trump and his legal team have three hurdles they must overcome, and each one seems insurmountable.
1. Evidence
WHAT HAPPPENED
Recently, a man boarded a Jet Blue flight from New York City’s Kennedy Airport bound for Palm Beach, Florida. Prior to boarding he had been tested for the coronavirus and was awaiting test results. He failed to disclose that information to anyone from the airline. While on the flight, the man learned that he tested positive for the deadly virus. The crew and 114 passengers were stuck on the tarmac for hours awaiting instructions from health officials. Jet Blue has permanently banned the passenger from all of their future flights, indicating that the passenger, “…put their “crewmembers, customers, and federal and local officials in an unsettling situation that could have easily been avoided.” The coronavirus positive patient is currently in isolation at this time.
Many have been wondering whether the passenger should face criminal charges for his actions. Law enforcement are reportedly looking into that issue right now. What do you think?
Among the various changes and laws affecting Florida next week, the minimum wage will be seeing a bump. Florida is among the eight states that will automatically increase these rates on New Year’s Day, which is calculated by taking into account the annual cost of living calculations.
Per the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (FDEO), which calculates the annual adjustments, the increase will result in an increase of 1.12 percent, which is roughly a dime, or about $8.56 an hour beginning next year, up from the existing $8.46 hourly.
Tipped employees have a current rate of $5.44 hourly which will change slightly to $5.54 an hour, according to the FDEO.
With close friends and family, borrowing their belongings such as an item of clothing or perhaps a video game or two is common. However, if the relationship goes south for whatever reason, the person whose items were borrowed may accuse the borrower of stealing their belongings.
How does borrowing differ from theft? Theft means a person intended to commit a criminal act. If, for example, a person simply forgot they had the item in their possession and never returned it, a prosecutor may not be able to bring up a theft charge.
Prosecutors may have trouble proving that the borrower’s intention was indeed to steal an item rather than borrowing it. Even if a person quietly kept the item with the hopes its original owner would forget about it, for example, chances may be slim that a court of law would accept “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the intention was to steal.
I didn’t believe it until I read about it in several different media reports. A six year old Florida girl was arrested and charged with battery. Apparently she threw a temper tantrum in class, resulting in law enforcement being summonded. They handcuffed her, transported her to the juvenile detention center (fancy name for “kid jail”) and then she was fingerprinted. As if that wasn’t enough humiliation, they also had her mugshot taken.
What country are we living in? Who in their right mind would ever order this to occur? The answer to “Who would do this?” is… Officer Dennis Turner, from the Orlando Police Department. Fortunately, we are now hearing that he broke protocol by not contacting his commander. I say, “Fortunately,” because I’d hate to think that this is the standard operating procedure in that jurisdiction. I would lose sleep knowing that this is the norm.
For what it’s worth, the child’s grandmother alleges that the girl suffers from sleep apnea and hasn’t been sleeping much lately. She believes the child’s behavior resulted from sleep depravation. Additionally, I’ve seen plenty of photos and video showing the size of the six year old child. She’s tiny. Think about the smallest Huxtable kid or grandkid. Yeah, that’s about right.
OVERVIEW
Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past several months, you now know about the extremely controversial plea deal that Jeffrey Epstein was afforded. He received 13 months in county jail, had to register as a sex offender, and was ordered to pay restitution to his numerous victims. Many are outraged at the result, finding it way too lenient. Whether you think that was a fair outcome likely hinges on whether you believe what former Labor Secretary/Former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta said during his recent press conference, held just days before he resigned from Trump’s cabinet. If you believe him, then you subscribe to the notion that it was the best deal prosecutors could get under challenging circumstances and that both he, the career prosecutors who also worked on the case, and law enforcement agents, all acted in good faith in order to obtain for the victims the best possible resolution they could negotiate. If you believe Acosta, then you factor into the equation the things that he mentioned, like how the Government’s case wasn’t a slam dunk and that the climate for these types of cases was very different both in and out of court in 2008 than it is now. If you don’t believe Acosta, then you think something very different. Many have even gone as far as to suggest that Acosta intentionally tanked his case for personal benefit.
Whether Acosta was being honest and/or whether prosecutors did the right thing back then is not the focus of this article. There’s already plenty of those articles out there. You’re free to feel how you’d like. I have no agenda. What I want to focus on is what will most likely happen as a result of this uproar. One thing is for sure, there will be significant changes in the criminal arena as a result of the Epstein case controversy.
As you’ve likely heard by now, all charges against former Empire Star Jussie Smollett were dropped by Cook County prosecutors in a Chicago criminal courtroom yesterday. You’ve probably heard the facts, however, just in case, here’s an article from yesterday to get you caught up to speed: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/26/arts/television/jussie-smollett-charges-dropped.html
I want to discuss what we learned today and why I am feeling pissed, angered, livid, upset and/or frustrated. During an interview with First Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney Joseph Magats, who lead the investigation, he said “I do not believe he (Smollett) is innocent.” In explaining why they dropped charges, Magats said, “Based on all the facts and circumstances, based on his life and criminal background. I mean, we defer and do alternative prosecutions. In the last two years, we’ve done 5,700 other felony cases.” What he didn’t say was that they had any problems with proving their case. So why the heck did Smollett get the deal of the century?
To Mr. Magats, I passionately state in response, “THIS ISN’T YOUR TYPICAL CASE, MR. MAGATS!!!!!! There is nothing typical or average or ordinary about this case Mr. Magats!!!! MR. MAGATS, THE CHARGES IN THIS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DROPPED!!!!!!! YOU SCREWED UP, SIR!!!”
INTRODUCTION
You’re driving in your car somewhere in Broward County, Florida and Officer (Un)Friendly stops you. He alleges that you violated some traffic infraction. Let’s say he claims you were speeding. Then, he alleges he has probable cause to believe you committed a criminal offense, let’s say drunk driving (DUI). He then points to your cell phone that’s charging in your vehicle. He says, “I’d like to look through that.” For some reason, you say, “Sure, you seem nice and I have nothing to hide.” He then takes hold of your phone and attempts to look through it. At that moment, I happen to drive up to the scene. After you explain to me what occurred up to that point, I passionately provide you with some legal advice. Based on that, you say to the officer, I want my phone back. He fires back with, “I’m not giving your phone back until you give me the passcode to your phone so I can see what is in there.” Do you legally have to give him your passcode under these circumstances?
ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
At 4:20 pm, on a warm South Florida evening, a trooper stops a vehicle driven by Mary Wanna. Her vehicle had a broken tail light. When the trooper approaches, he smells the odor of marijuana emanating from inside the vehicle. Mary appears to be lethargic and has the odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from her breath. Her eyes are glossy and bloodshot and her movements are slow. The trooper asks the driver if she has been drinking. The driver responds, “No, not recently.” The trooper requests that the driver exit her vehicle. Mary slowly exits and seems to have difficulty standing without swaying. The trooper requests that she perform some “field sobriety exercises,” (also known as “roadside tests”). The trooper concludes that Mary “failed each and every test given.” He places her under arrest for DUI (Driving Under The Influence). Back at the station, Mary is asked to blow into the breath machine and blows a .000, indicating that no alcohol is present in her system. The officer then requests that Mary provide a urine sample. Several weeks later, the lab report is made available and it reveals the presence of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. Can prosecutors prove their case?
ANALYSIS
WHAT HAPPENED?
By now, you’ve heard the “King of Pudding” was convicted of three felony rape counts. His first trial ended in a hung jury. That means that jurors couldn’t agree to a unanimous verdict. So what changed from the first to the second trial that led to his conviction? It’s a simple formula: 5 is better than 2…as in 5 victims testifying for the prosecution is better than only two victims. For reasons the judge failed to articulate, he allowed five of Cosby’s prior rape victims to testify in the second trial while previously only allowing two. That certainly aided the prosecutions’ efforts of tipping the scales of evidence to “proof beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.”
As persuasive as the five testifying victims were, what jurors found equally, if not more compelling, were Cosby’s own words. No, he didn’t take the witness stand. That was a good strategic decision as he would have been obliterated on cross examination. His words were those he spoke to civil lawyers in a prior civil suit. In that deposition, which was read to jurors, Cosby admitted under oath a number of disturbing things, which jurors found to be proof of guilt. The most compelling admission was his use of Quaaludes which he liked to provide to young women in order to induce them to have sex with him. He gave them out to women like non rapists give out drinks to their dates. He also admitted that he went to great lengths to conceal these affairs from his wife, who he calls, “Mrs. Cosby.”
Florida Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog