Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog

As you have learned from reading this daily Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog, criminal laws are getting more and more complex. Changes in the laws take place all the time. This is but one of the reasons that I urge you to retain the advice and aid of an experienced criminal defense attorney when you find yourself an unwilling guest in the Halls of Justice…or, better yet, before you even enter the door.

Let’s take a crime of possession for example. In Massachusetts, not so long ago, the Commonwealth could present evidence that a gun is operable or that illegal drugs are present simply by submitting a certification from and expert into evidence. Nobody had to testify. Just the paper saying either the gun was operable or that what the police believed was cocaine was, indeed, cocaine.

Have you ever tried to cross examine a piece of paper? It is very difficult to do.

Finally, the courts ruled that a witness needs to testify to authenticate the document and answer questions about it. This is because a criminal defendant has the right to confront witnesses against him or her. How do you confront a piece of paper? Let alone the hearsay objections…!

This was a pretty major change in the law and has shaken up a number of criminal prosecutions. One such case was Commonwealth v. Barbosa, and it was handed down by Boston’s Supreme Judicial Court on Tuesday. In that case, the defendant was convicted of possession of a variety of things he was not supposed to have. He had a gun, he had ammunition and he had marihuana. Of course, what he did not have was a license to have any of it. The defendant appealed arguing, among other things, that the Commonwealth should not have been able to rely on simply submitting the certificate on the gun without a live witness. Further, the defendant argued that the fact that the Commonwealth was allowed to do so deprived him of his right to a fair trial. In other words, it was not a “harmless error”.

The SJC agreed.

Citing the earlier holding in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the court held that because of the import of the certificate of examination, the evidence that showed the gun was operable, to the overall prosecution, this could not be considered “harmless” and so the conviction for the gun possession had to be reversed.

Attorney Sam’s Take On The Need For Experienced Criminal Defense Attorneys

Let’s take a scenario.

Continue reading "BOSTON’S SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT UPHOLDS PREVIOUS RULING AND REVERSES GUN CONVICTION" »

Let’s first look at a recent United States Supreme Court case in point.

On January 18, 2012, the Court rendered its decision in Maples v. Thomas. The case wasa criminal appeal from a gentleman who had been found guilty of murder and sentenced to death in Alabama state court. Later, he sought post conviction relief in state court under Alabama Rule 32, alleging, among other things, that his trial attorneys failed to give him the effective assistance that is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.

Part of the problem was that this petitioner had missed the deadline before which such an appeal could be filed. Under the local law, his rights for such an appeal were therefore waived. The question became whether the facts of this particular case were enough “cause” to excuse this procedural default in state court.

Last week, the Court held that he had shown such cause as he had been abandoned by his lawyer and left unrepresented during the time he would have had to file. The Court further found that he lacked any knowledge of such deadlines on his own.

Attorney Sam’s Take On Incompetent Counsel

Being prosecuted for a crime, whether you are guilty or innocent, is hell. Nothing is going to change that. However, it is the belief of this Boston criminal lawyer that one thing that can make the experience more palpable is to have a defense attorney in whom you have faith and feel comfortable with.

“What if my case has been pending for awhile? Isn’t it too late to switch?”

Continue reading "“I DON’T THINK MY CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER IS DOING HIS JOB ON MY BEHALF. AM I STUCK?”" »

In my last blog, we discussed Boston's Supreme Judicial Court's new ruling in the case of Commonwealth v. Tremblay. I used this case to cap off about a week of blogs concerning Massachusetts search and seizure issues.

Through my experience as a Boston criminal lawyer, I have seen how the playing ground is not even between the prosecution and the defense. Some of it is necessary and perhaps even desirable. However, the government’s advantage goes much further than that point.

The reality is that the government has the power and the resources to coerce, cajole, wiretap and virtually anything else it deems necessary in order to build a case against someone. During this time, the suspect may not even know that anyone even suspects wrongdoing on his part. The problem is that, accept it or not, some people are actually not guilty of the things of which they are suspected. And, in the course of the investigation, friends, family and neighbors, not to mention associates, are often squeezed for the “right “ information…whether or not said information is the actual truth.

And then comes the investigative cherry on top…the suspect’s statement. As we have discussed, a suspect does not have to talk to law enforcement. However, people are scared when approached by investigators. And when those officers keep pressing the suspect with assurances like, “Hey, we only want to know your side of things, then you can go home. We know you are a good kid”…it gets pretty hard sometimes to refuse to “cooperate”.

In Tremblaly, the issue was whether or not the statement given to law enforcement was voluntary. In the case, the officers encouraged the suspect to speak by agreeing to take the statement “off the record”.

“Off the record” does not exist in such a situation. Police officers are not news reporters.

To make matters worse, lying to suspects is generally regarded as “good police work”. However, should the suspect return the favor…that would be the felony charge of Intimidation Of A Witness.

People often respond, “That’s not fair” when I explain this to them. I explain that the usual definitions of fairness, logic and justice often do not count all that much in a pending criminal matter.

The question is, will there ever come a time when we, or the appeals courts, will say “Enough is enough!”

Maybe.

At least this Boston criminal lawyer is hoping it will be said in a meaningful manner.

Attorney Sam’s Take On Judicial Warnings

The United States Supreme Court has held that, in order for a statement by a defendant to be admissible, the statement has to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Instantly throwing what we usually consider intelligent, what does this mean? Is the law much different in Massachusetts? Does the highest Massachusetts court think there should be limits on police behavior when it comes to “voluntary” statements?

Kinda-sorta.

Continue reading "When speaking to MA Police, nothing is off the record- A Boston Criminal Lawyer’s view." »

Attorney Sam’s Take On Massachusetts Criminal Appeals

Your worse fears have been realized, The jury’s foreman has announced that the jury panel has found you guilty as charged.

Your Boston Criminal Lawyer turns to you and murmurs that it is “not over yet” and that he will be filing an appeal this very day.

Sounds great. Only one question. Does that mean its argued right now? Can you wait out the appeal process outside the walls of punishment? Most of all…will the Appeals Court recognize the jury’s tragic mistake?

Ok, more than one question.

Well, the answers to these questions tend to vary from case to case.

As I began to explain last Thursday, the job of the various appeals courts differ from that of the trial court.

The trial you just went through was to determine the facts. Presumably, the Commonwealth was successful at proving you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Both your Boston criminal lawyer and the prosecutor put before the jury various arguments and pieces of evidence. The person in charge of what evidence/arguments actually got before the jury was the Judge.

The jury has reached its verdict on you. One way to look at it is that it is now time for the appeals court to pass judgment on His Honor.

No, that appeal is not going to be argued today. Nor tomorrow. Not for several months at least in fact.

Continue reading "My Boston Criminal Lawyer Says I Can Appeal My Conviction; What Does That Mean?" »

Luis Melendez-Diaz (hereinafter, the “Petitioner”) has been convicted of being a Massachusetts drug dealer. This took place quite awhile ago. However, his case did not end after trial. There was an appeal. The appeal went on to change the face of Massachusetts criminal trial procedure…to a point.

You see, the Petitioner had a set of his drug convictions overturned by the United States Supreme Court in 2009 when it ruled that a criminal defendant’s right to confront accusing witnesses included certain expert witnesses. These were who prepared paperwork regarding testing such things as guns and drugs. Previously, the Commonwealth simply threw a copy of said experts’ reports in front of the jury and called it a day as to what said reports said (i.e., “Yes, it was indeed heroin”, “The gun really was an operable gun”, etc.).

In its ruling, the Court said that a defendant facing such evidence against him or her had the right to cross-examine a human being, not simply be left with said human’s paperwork. As you might imagine, it is very hard to cross-examine a piece of paper.

In the Petitioner’s first trial in Boston, prosecutors simply filed paperwork saying tests on powder seized from the Petitioner showed they were cocaine. After the successful criminal appeal, the Petitioner was tried a second time and acquitted in February.

The ruling created what became known as the “Mendez-Diaz Rule” and caused a number of cases to be challenged by convicted defendants.

However, all good things must end. Even in criminal justice.

You see, while this may have made more business for Boston criminal lawyers, it also presented a problem for the prosecutors and courts. Over-crowding issues aside, the courts were not ready to simply open the floodgates and allow everybody out of prison.

The Supreme Judicial Court has now put limits on the ruling. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Judicial Court has left intact other of the Petitioner’s convictions for drug dealing as well as the 10-year prison sentence that came with them.

The SJC has now set a limit for the retroactive reach of Melendez-Diaz. This new ruling affects the Petitioner's earlier convictions. The SJC said it will limit the reach of the Melendez-Diaz case to convictions after June 25, 2009, unless cases older than that have not yet been reviewed by an appeals court.

The Petitioner was arrested in February 2004 in the case this effects. He was convicted in 2005, and had his conviction upheld on appeal in 2007 and in 2008. The US Supreme Court issued its ruling on June 25, 2009. The mathematical result?

The Petitioner does not profit from his famous case a second time.

“We see no fundamental injustice or unfairness in applying Melendez-Diaz as a new rule with prospective effect,’’ Justice Robert Cordy wrote for the unanimous SJC.

Attorney Sam’s Take On Criminal Appeals And Supreme Court Rulings

When we discuss the criminal justice system in this daily blog, we generally refer to the part before any appeal. If a defendant is acquitted, then there is no appeal. If there is a conviction, however, most criminal defendants appeal the matter.

Continue reading "A Boston Criminal Lawyer Discusses A New MA Appellate Issue" »

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Boston has ruled in favor of the prosecution. The type of case? Operating under the influence.

As you may know, when one is pulled over by police, and suspected of being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, one is offered the opportunity to try their luck in a variety of mini-contests. These would include various field sobriety tests as well as the breathalyzer machine.

The SJC has now ruled that the Commonwealth need not call a technician to testify that the breathalyzer used was working properly at the time in question.

The matter originated with a Greenfield woman who had been convicted of drunk driving. Her Massachusetts drunk driving attorney argued that, since the certification of the breathalyzer was introduced into evidence, that the defendant had the right to cross-examine a live witness with regard to said certification. The purpose, of course, would be to call into question how closely the machine had been inspected so that the jury could decide for itself whether they believed the machine was working properly.

After all, the United States Constitution’s Sixth Amendment indicates that a criminal defendant has the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. The defense argued that the certificate is testimony in itself and one cannot cross-examine a piece of paper. Thus, the preparer of said certificate should be called to testify by the Commonwealth.

Continue reading "Boston’s SJC Rules Against Defense Drunk Driving Attorney On Breathalyzer Evidence" »

It’s stories like this that helps me love what I do for a living; you just never know what is going to happen next! Just when we see debacles like the one surrounding the Parole Board because of a recent police killing, and we see the predictable scurrying about by prosecutorial politicians to make sure that they cannot be splattered with blame, the Supreme Judicial Court takes the opposite tact. They look to uphold people’s rights...despite the likely public outcry.

Specifically, the court dealt with the case of Malcolm S. Maker, a 52-year-old convicted sex offender (hereinafter, the “Appellant” ). The Appellant had been convicted for failing to register his address with the Boston police department within two days of his release from jail, as required by the state Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB).

That is, until now.

The SJC now says that said rule is beyond SORB’s authority.

Apparently, the Appellant is not the most sympathetic of individuals. He has been designated a Level 3 sex offender, which is the type said to be most likely to reoffend. His history of convictions include various allegations of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior.

Then, in 2009, he was charged with failing to notify the police after he was released from jail that he would be living in a Boston homeless shelter. He was convicted and sentenced to two years in jail.

Then came the appeal.

Continue reading "Appeal To SJC Successful As Court Overturns Failure To Register Conviction For Boston Serial Sex Offender – Attorney Sam’s Take" »

…And as we prance away from acknowledging the realities of the criminal justice system, we dance along with Governor Deval Patrick. His new proposed dance-step bows politely to law enforcement. It’s a nice dance, really. The only people likely to be hurt are the poor and disenfranchised. But then, if you follow the tune, you will realize that when they are accused of crimes, they are probably guilty anyway. So, perhaps still stinging from criticism that made him cave in the Parole Board fiasco, he is in no mood to consider them.

That's right. It’s gonna be another one of those blogs.

We discussed this issue awhile ago. Massachusetts’ prosecutors are whining that those big bad criminal defense attorneys who are hired to represent indigent criminal defendantsr, after a proper nickel and diming and receiving only a fraction of what their work is worth, are making too much money. Never mind the vastly uneven playing field in which prosecutors who do not have anywhere near the professional expenses and yet have all of the resources available to their disposal. Forget about the fact that those poor crusaders of justice are able to support families and build a nest egg while their indigent-representing-opponents can barely meet the expenses that law enforcement agencies meet for the "good guys".

Do you realize that those scourges of justice, the defense lawyers, have the temerity to believe that they ought to be able to meet expenses? Some such misanthropes even think they should earn a living!

Well, the governor has decided to solve the problem in true Shakespearean style. While he is not going so far as to "kill all the lawyers", he is taking a dramatic stand with they who seem to have the power…law enforcement. Of course, there is not enough money to give better salaries to prosecutors yet, so why not crush the other side of the aisle a bit more? Who’s going to complain? The poor who depend on those attorneys for a chance at a fair trial? Oh, come on, now. Those professional vermin the defense attorneyes? Grow up!

Continue reading "Boston Governor Proposes The Elimination Of Sufficient Legal Representation For Indigent Defendants- Attorney Sam’s Take " »

Here’s one for the sex trade! In the past, we have discussed many times the various, and in my opinion, faulty rationales for keeping prostitution illegal. One of those rationales has been that prostitutes are, per se, victims. They are exploited and forced to perform sex acts for money. The thought seems to have been that being a prostitute is definitional of losing one’s will and performing the evil deeds by force.

Well, the Massachusetts Appeals Court has ruled against this equation. It has thrown out the convictions of a pimp and a madam (hereinafter, the “Defendants”), ruling that the couple did not lure a homeless and drug-addicted teenager into prostitution because the 16-year-old runaway had sold her body for money in the past.

The court did, however, let stand the Defendants’ convictions for deriving support from prostitution and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

The allegations in the case were that the Defendants drove the teen to the hotel where she met an undercover detective and agreed to engage in sex for $280, according to court records. Using a ruse, the officer convinced the teen to leave the hotel before any sexual acts occurred. The teen then apparently handed the cash the Defendants, who were waiting in the hotel parking lot

The court found, “We think that the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous and that it clearly expresses the Legislature's intent to penalize a person for inducing a minor, who is not then so engaged, to engage in the commercial enterprise of prostitution by offering for hire his or her body for indiscriminate sexual activity’’.

As a Boston sex crimes criminal defense attorney for over twenty years, not to mention previous years as a prosecutor, I have been involved in a number of cases involving prostitution.

Continue reading "Boston’s Appeals Court Overturns Sex Crime Conviction In Prostitution Case Involving A Juvenile- Attorney Sam’s Take " »

On Friday, I told you that there were two decisions handed down by Boston’s Supreme Judicial Court that I wanted to address with you. The first, having to do with a murder conviction, had to do with jury bias. The second has to do with the topic of DNA and the statute of limitations, particularly in cases involving rape and other sex crimes.

It also has to do with hypocrisy.

The SJC has now ruled that prosecutors can indict suspects known only by their DNA profiles and bring them to ""justice years later when police identify who the genetic material belongs to, even if the statutes of limitation have lapsed.

This was a big decision and is being regarded by many as the next logical step in our evolving criminal justice system of the 21st century. It is the first decision of its kind in Massachusetts. The Court concluded that a DNA profile is an “indelible ‘bar code’ that labels an individual’s identity with nearly irrefutable precision.’’ As such, it can serve as the identity of the person indicted, even though the charging document lists the unknown defendant as “John Doe”.

The ruling is consistent with the state of the law in several other states.

You see, the issue here is the statute of limitations applicable to various matters. Said statute sets a time bar, similar to civil matters, within which a case can be brought against a particular defendant. Every crime has a statute of limitations except in cases of murder. There is no statute of limitations on murder.

Continue reading "Attorney Sam’s Take: Boston’s SJC Rules On “DNA Indictments” In Rape Case" »

The attorneys in the Chuck Turner corruption case are expected to make opening statements today, Already, however, issues have arisen which cast doubt on Mr. Turner’s ability to have a fair trial. In other words, from the defense’ view, should there be a conviction, appeal issues have already begun to present themselves..

Last week, we discussed the government’s witness who no longer wishes to be a witness in the white collar criminal case

As the week went on, jury selection began.

As you know, the purpose of jury selection is to pose various questions to prospective jurors to weed out those who cannot be fair and impartial to both the defendant and the government. One of the areas in which the court inquires is whether or not the prospective jurors already have heard anything about the case prior to the trial. This is because the jury is supposed to limit their consideration of the facts to the evidence as presented at trial.

As you also know, every fact that exists about a matter, or that was reported in the press, is not necessarily admissible at trial.

Well, it would appear that many of the prospective jurors in the Turner case already knew something of this case prior to coming to federal court to potentially sit on it. Some knew the basic outline of the federal corruption case, others barely anything at all.

But one thing was engraved on the minds of many: the explosive photographs of former state senator Dianne Wilkerson and Turner allegedly taking bribes in 2007 and 2008

In particular, several prospective jurors mentioned a widely disseminated picture of Wilkerson stuffing 10 $100 bills into her bra at No. 9 Park, a posh restaurant near the State House.

Game over for said potential jurors? Not quite.

Continue reading "Jurors Already Aware Of Evidence In Corruption Case In Federal Criminal Trial" »

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”), the Commonwealth’s highest court , situated in Boston, has rejected a motion by Calvin C., convicted in the 2005 Bourneside murders,(hereinafter, the “Defendant”) to stay his appeal so that he could seek a new trial based on evidence he said showed he was framed.

The Defendant is currently serving four consecutive life terms for killing four men in Dorchester.

The claim, as represented by the Defendant’s lawyer before the SJC, is that the Suffolk district attorney’s office had for over a year withheld information that potentially cast doubt on his guilt. This is known as “exculpatory evidence” which the prosecution is to deliver to the defense immediately upon discovering it.

On August 13th, prosecutors apparently provided the Defendant’s a February 2009 affidavit from an inmate asserting that another gentleman, who pleaded guilty to acting as an accessory to the murders, confessed that he was the real killer. Said gentleman was sentenced to 13 years in prison.

On Friday, the Supreme Judicial Court denied the Defendant’s motion for the stay on his appeal without offering an explanation or calling for a hearing. The Defendant had previously appealed the 2008 conviction, arguing that the trial judge in the case wrongly dismissed the one juror who believed the Defendant was not guilty of the murders. The Court of Appeals is still considering that appeal

Continue reading "A Boston Criminal Attorney Discusses SJC’s Ruling In Murder Appeal Motion (Part One)" »

The Death Penalty has long been a controversial issue. Nowhere is that more true than in good ol’ Massachusetts. You see, the Commonwealth, like most states, has two criminal justice systems running through it – state and federal. The crime of murder, which often carries capital punishment sentences, is usually handled in state court. In state court, there is no death penalty. However, in federal court, there is.

Depending on the circumstances, however, some murders are handled in federal court. Gary S. (hereinafter, the "Defendant") got his murder and carjacking convictions in federal court.

The sentence? Ah, well, there is the rub.

The Defendant, originally of Abington, was convicted for his violent felonies seven years ago. The events apparently took place back in 2001. Now, seven years after a federal jury recommended the Defendant be sentenced to death for the crimes committed during a weeklong series of killings in two states, lawyers for the Defendant plan to argue in court today that he should get a new trial.

Continue reading "MA Convicted Car-Jacker And Murderer Fights Conviction, Blaming Lawyers In Federal Court" »

As a Boston-area criminal defense attorney, I face many “There but for the grace of G-d go I” moments. As I have often discussed in these postings, I am constantly presented with lives that have been ruined by very bad moments. Such moments can change an otherwise on-track life into something of a living nightmare. Some people choose such moments on a regular basis. For others, dealing with the debris of one such moment is enough to last a life-time.

Last week, I side-stepped one such moment.

I was appearing on a murder case at Suffolk Superior Court which involved a shooting. As it turned out, the next door session had a murder trial of its own in which the jury was deliberating. Ironically, the subject matter of that case was related to my case. I waited awhile in case the verdict came, but it did not.

It came the next day instead. I wasn’t there, but I learned in the papers that the verdicts were guilty. But, as it turned out, the verdicts were the least of the excitement the court experienced.

Moments after the defendants were denounced by the deceased’s family for their “animalistic’’ actions in a victim impact statement, the courtroom exploded into a melee between said victims and families of the four men convicted of murdering the 16-year-old on a Dorchester street in 2007.

After being given the mandatory sentence for second-degree murder (life with the possibility of parole after serving 15 years) one of the convicted lads protested his innocence,

The clerk then announced that the men were sentenced to prison for their “natural life.’’
One of the defendants’ relatives shouted out, “What do you mean ‘natural life?’ ’’

Continue reading "Assault And Disorderly Conduct Charges Result From Boston Courtroom Murder Trial Sentencing" »

There were a few fireworks yesterday in Middlesex Superior Court in Woburn, Massachusetts. Attorneys argued over the topics of the defense attorney’s proposed summation. The Judge agreed with the Commonwealth and overruled the objections voiced by the defense.

The setting was Commonwealth v. John Odgren. The charge is Murder in the First Degree. We discussed this matter at the onset of the trial. Young Mr. Odgren, 19, (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) now awaits a jury’s verdict in his stabbing of another youth to death in school.

The Defendant admitted to the stabbing. However, the defense is that he was not criminally responsible for the homicide because he was insane.

The debate was what the jury could be told about the result should they return a verdict that he was not guilty by reason of said insanity. The defense attorney wanted to be able to argue to the jury that, if they returned such a verdict, that the Defendant would not simply be freed to go out and kill again. This, of course, is a common misunderstanding of the law, and one that can cost a mentally handicapped person liberty-by way of state prison- for the rest of said person’s life.

Continue reading "Dilemma Of A Boston Criminal Defense Attorney In A Murder Trial" »

The Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog has often warned you that you want to have an experienced criminal defense attorney advise and, if necessary, defend you if you find yourself to be a target or a criminal defendant. I have given you many reasons for this. Today’s story reveals one more.

Sometimes, the law, as applied by the courts, is wrong. This is the stuff about which appeals are made. So, in short, you want to have an attorney who not only knows what the law is...but what it should be.

Our case in point is a recent group of rulings by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. In the rulings, at least eight Plymouth County cases were overturned pursuant to the United States. Supreme Court ruling last summer that it wasn’t enough to use lab analysis paperwork as evidence – the chemists and ballistics experts (in gun cases) who did the tests have to testify, too.

Two Friday rulings by the state Supreme Judicial Court may open the door for even more of those cases to be appealed, said Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz. The rulings held that even if the defense attorney didn’t formally object to the paperwork as evidence or questioned whether the items tested were drugs, the case can still be tossed out.

Continue reading "United States And Massachusetts Supreme Courts Agree, Drug/Gun Cases Are Overturned And Prosecuting Attorneys Are Worried" »

The Massachusetts Appeals Court will be conducting a hearing on February 10th to determine whether a new trial should be granted to Corey R. (hereinafter,the “Defendant”) for the 2001 killing of a school counselor, the Reverend Theodore N. Brown. This time, it is the prosecuting attorney who is pursuing the appeal.

You see, a Hampden Superior Court Judge granted the motion for a new trial. The Commonwealth contends the judge was wrong in allowing the motion.

The Defendant, who was 17-years-old at the time, had been convicted of second-degree murder for the December 5, 2001, stabbing death of Reverend Brown in a classroom. The trial was conducted in 2003 before the late Judge Thomas J. Curley Jr.

Judge Cornelius J. Moriarty ruled in February 2008 that the Defendant is entitled to a new trial on the basis of ineffective legal representation.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Appeals Court Hears New trial Motion In Murder case " »

The issue of Search and Seizure is in the news again today. While the case itself is not based in Boston, it is of interest to lawyers, police officials and drivers anywhere. Why? Because it involves the United States Supreme Court, which seems split on the subject.

The case actually hails from Virginia and the conviction of Joseph A.M.H.,Jr (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) for drunk driving. It seems that the Defendant was pulled over by the police before they saw him break any traffic laws. That conviction has been overturned on appeal by Virginia’s Supreme Court.

And that is the issue. Did the police have the right to pull over the Defendant before they saw him commit any crimes?

Continue reading "Drunk Driving Case Ignites Legal Fight On Search And Seizure" »