We still give free consultations on any criminal defense matter for one simple reason: it’s the right thing to do. If you have been charged with a crime, you are likely worried and afraid. You may want to just "get it all behind you and plead guilty." Before you do, call us. Take some time and meet to discuss your case. The true cost of a DUI (or any criminal charge) is not just what it takes to hire a lawyer; the true cost is much, much more.

First, there are the costs associated with fines, court costs, and bail. In Ada County, the court costs for a simple charge of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol will run over $175, just for the privilege of showing up to plead guilty! Fines for a first time DUI can be $1,000 and if you blew a .2 or higher you can double that amount. An alcohol evaluation can run another $100 and the cost of "alcohol education" hundreds of dollars more. And then there is the cost of re-instating your license with the Idaho Department of Transportation – another $88.

But wait, there’s more. The real cost of that DUI includes the impact that plea of guilty can have on future employment. The conviction will be there forever, regardless of whether the judgment is "withheld" an employer can find out that you pled guilty. Add in the cost of increased SR-22 insurance, payments for "supervised" probation, the cost of finding a ride or public transportation to work, and the inconvenience of having to go to court ordered treatment and what you have is a very expensive "get it over" guilty plea.

How much does a DUI or criminal charge cost? It’s not just the money – get ready to hand over the keys to your freedom if you plead guilty. Even a first time DUI can land you in the clink for five days or so.

So stop and take a deep breath before you go in and plead guilty.

Let us take a look at your case and see if there is another way. The consultation is free. Let us take the time to explain the system and process the courts use to deal with criminal charges. Then you can make a reasoned decision about how to proceed.

The cost of a DUI? It can be very expensive. It can cost $5,000 or more to "just plead guilty" when you add up the real expense.

Take some time and get a professional opinion first.  

 

#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

 

Continue Reading How much does a DUI cost?

 

"Hey, isn’t that you in that article in Businessweek about the defense of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed."

Yes – that is me, but the story is about David Nevin, the "Velvit Shiv." The picture above adorns the story detailing our pal David Nevin’s current and past work. The photo is from another terrorism case – the US vs. Sami Al Hussayen, in which the Shiv, his partner Scott McKay and I are shown walking out of the courthouse after a jury acquitted our client.

Kind of nice to see the picture in Businessweek, and kind of surprising at the same time.

Here’s the thing from the article that I liked. Nevin is defending Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, self-proclaimed 911 mastermind. Why would anyone defend KSM? 

That’s the crux of being a criminal defense lawyer. We represent even the most despised because the judicial system relies on every person being able to find counsel. So Nevin is doing the same thing that John Adams did in representing the British soldiers in Boston. Morris Davis was the chief prosecutor at Guantanamo. He calls it like this:

“You have people questioning your patriotism or your commitment to the country because you’re defending the enemies of your country,” said Davis, who teaches at Howard University School of Law in Washington. “But if our system is going to work, we need people who are going to take on the unpopular cases and fight them hard. History looks back favorably.”

Local attorney Klaus Wiebe said it the way I believe it:

“To be a criminal-defense lawyer, you have to really have two attributes,” said Klaus Wiebe, the former public defender in Ada County, Idaho, for whom Nevin once worked. “You really have to be for the underdog. The power of the government is so extreme that your client is always the underdog. And you also have to be willing to get your ass kicked fairly regularly and not give up.”

 

#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

Nevin will not go gently into that dark night and his client will have the best possible defense. I am proud to say that I have been there with him before and know how tough an advocate he is.
 
Twenty years ago this week, Nevin and I joined up with Gerry Spence to visit a tiny cabin on Ruby Ridge and defend two men accused of murder. It seems only fitting that Businessweek should feature Nevin’s work defending a man who is likely the most hated reminder of the attacks on 9/11.
 
The justice system depends on lawyers who are willing to handle impossible cases and despised clients. Without such lawyers, the system is a sham, and the results of proceedings in such a system would be meaningless. 
 
Charged with a crime? Need advice? Call us. Like our pal, we always defend.
 

 

Continue Reading The “Velvet Shiv,” McKay and I are in Bloomberg Businessweek?

 A couple mornings ago I heard financial Guru Jim Cramer talking about the Feds – in particular, he was talking about potential criminal charges against stock traders or sellers:

"The most frightening thing in the world is to go up against the US Attorney. They have unlimited resources and you don’t!"

He is absolutely correct. 

The United States Attorney’s office prosecutes federal cases and they do in fact have unlimited money and perhaps, more importantly, power. Every time I’m involved in the criminal case against the United States, it is clear that they are months or sometimes years ahead of me. By that I mean that they have already spent tons of money and hours investigating the allegations. By the time charges are filed, federal investigators have combed through documents, and built a case against my client that may be virtually impossible to crack.

So, should you fear the feds? Yes!

If you have to do battle with the federal government, you better strap it on and be ready for the fight of your life. They play for keeps. There is no federal probation and parole to provide an easy out for an innocent person caught in their web. And as George Washington said over 200 years ago, "government is not reason, it is power."

If you are facing a federal investigation, here are 3 steps you must take immediately:

Number 1. Don’t talk. Federal investigators are trained to get everybody in a case talking. They play nice. They sit you down in a room and offer you a drink, and then they get you to pour your heart out. Everybody in America has heard that he or she has a "right to remain silent," but nobody ever remains silent. So don’t talk. Don’t tell them your story. Sit tight and zip your lips.

You cannot talk your way out of a criminal charge when it comes to the feds.

It will not happen, despite the inner voice that tells you if you would only explain your side of the story the nice federal special agents would understand that you are really not guilty. Life does not work that way.

Number 2. Get the best lawyer you can afford, immediately.  You have the right to counsel to assist you with respect to a potential criminal investigation. From my experience, the people who do the best when it comes to the feds are those who have had counsel and remained silent. An experienced criminal defense lawyer is going to be able to guide you through the process. But notice that I said experienced. I mean a criminal defense lawyer who has had experience with federal cases. Do not hire some young lawyer who has never had a federal case. You are not doing yourself any favors by doing so.

Number 3. Get ready for a long ride. The feds investigate, and investigate, and investigate some more, and at some moment in time years after they first considered your case, they indict. An indictment is a charging process for federal crimes. You have an absolute constitutional right to not face any federal felony offense unless there has been an indictment by grand jury. But a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich if asked to by a federal prosecutor. So do not expect that a federal investigation will be "fast and furious," quite the opposite it will be slow, deliberate, and painstakingly done by investigators who are well-trained and analysts who examine each and every inch of each and every document or item at issue. The truth is the federal government has a huge head start by the time a person is indicted in federal court.

By the time you face a federal criminal charge, government and its agents have been working perhaps for years in building a case against you that they consider to be so solid you will have no choice but to admit your guilt, take your punishment, and provide them with a conviction statistic.

If all this sounds little cynical, perhaps it is. After 31 years facing federal authorities on behalf of clients in cases across the United States, I have tremendous respect for the attorneys, investigators, and agents who bring these matters before the court. But I also understand that federal charges can be so broad as to ensnare a perfectly innocent person. When you look at the statistics shall see that roughly 95% of persons charged with federal crimes ultimately either plead guilty or are found guilty. A person found guilty faces a federal sentencing guideline structure that makes it very difficult to stay out of jail or prison.

For all these reasons, if you are facing a criminal charge in federal court, you need to play the game carefully, and you need someone who has experience to guide you through the process.

If you are facing federal charges give us a call. Whether we can take your case or not, we can certainly point you in the right direction. You can learn more about this subject by checking on my prior post.

 

 

 

Continue Reading Fear the Feds

 If you are stopped by a law enforcement officer who suspects that you are driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you will likely face the prospect of deciding whether to take the breathalyzer test. The question of whether the officer has legal cause to believe you have violated the law, thereby entitling him to request a test for alcohol or drugs, can be reviewed by the Idaho Transportation Department at an administrative license suspension (referred to as “ALS”) hearing. If you have been cited with DUI, be sure to make a request for the ALS hearing within seven days, in writing. If you fail to do so your license suspension will go unchallenged and into effect as the papers the officer indicate.

So why should you request the ALS hearing? Because you might win.

Last week we successfully defended a client in an ALS hearing, and the hearing officer vacated the suspension. Translation: the Department will not suspend his license and he can keep driving. The DUI charge that is pending could still result in the court suspending his license at some point down the road, but only on a finding of guilt. Unless a jury says he is guilty, he can continue to drive.

Just a word about that case is in order here – the case involved an accident in which our client took a serious blow to the head. He awoke in the hospital and was later informed that he was being charged with DUI – not by alcohol, but by drugs. He had traces of a prescription drug and a non-prescription drug in his blood stream, and if there was enough of the drug “on board” at the time of the accident, the state might be able to make an argument that the drugs influenced his driving. But that will require some real evidence of the amount or his driving pattern, and the state has neither. We will see where this one ends up, but I would bet it never goes to trial.

If you have questions about a legal matter, give us a call at 208-342-4633. We may be able to help you find a way through the legal minefields out there.

 

 

It’s Friday, and like most trial lawyers I am sitting at my desk wondering why I am not somewhere else. Did I mention that it’s Friday? Well it is. I was just checking out Facebook and I came across a link to a blog post by Henry Rollins, the former singer for a punk bank called Black Flag. You need to read this post whether you are a lawyer, client, client to be, or just someone who has found the Idaho Criminal Defense Blog by random good fortune. 

Rollins’ point is that we need to keep re-inventing ourselves and working on getting better at whatever we do. As he says – say yes to everything. Try new things and stop resting on your laurels. This is particularly true in todays economy – we re-invent and expand or we become irrelevant.

Lately we have seen our own expansion in this practice. Yesterday most of the new calls were about personal injury and wrongful death cases. Of course we do that stuff – have done it and have tried those battles and we can do it again. And we have now joined forces with a fantastic lawyer in Meridian, Monica Salazar, who focusses her practice on the Latino community and immigration law. She is brilliant, and we are lucky to have an association with her.

Again – we can expand our case knowledge and learn from her and she can do the same. We can work really hard to learn more and take advantage of the opportunity that Monica affords our practice.

Work hard and take advantage of the opportunities around you.

This is what I tell my clients – you’ve gotta’ get off your butt and live again. Find a job. Take a walk. Smell some flowers (or currently some smoke from those grass fires). Live everyday and move it, move it, move it. 

It’s Friday – and time to go for a little ride on the Fargo. 

 As a general rule, is it a good idea to refuse a breath test if you ever find yourself pulled over?

This is a question that we get asked frequently, and the answer really depends on you, how much you have had to drink, and whether you have a prior DUI. The main reason to refuse the test is that the breath test results often form the crux of the state’s DUI case against you. A breath test that indicates a BAC greater than .08 makes a difficult case to defend that much harder. Then again – in Idaho – if you refuse the test you will lose your driving privileges for a year – absolutely no driving at all. And that loss (through the Idaho Department of Transportation) results from the refusal, whether you win the trial or not.

Some people think they can avoid this trap by purchasing pocket breathalyzers. These devices, ranging from $10 to $300, are advertised as means of allowing you to test yourself before driving home.

Recently, one news organization put one such breathalyzer, the BACTrack S80, to the test. The $150 device is advertised as providing “professional accuracy at an affordable price.” The organization conducted a controlled experiment to determine just how accurately the device measured a person’s BAC. The test also served as a training exercise for officers to help them recognize signs of an impaired driver.

Four women and one man where served measured amounts of alcohol designed to bring their BAC close to the .08 legal limit. The participants self-assessed the amounts of alcohol served, guessing that they were given the equivalent of two or three drinks apiece. After each round of drinks, the participants were asked to blow into both the police breath test device and the BACTrack S80. Almost every time, the BACTrack S80 device had a lower number than the police authorized device. Moreover, the BACTrack S80 consistently registered lower blood alcohol levels than police breathalyzer device.

This difference was most pronounced after the first round of drinks, which could lead to a false sense of security. Believing that his BAC is lower than it really is, a person may choose to drink more than otherwise planned, causing him to be more intoxicated than he intended or believes himself to be.  Or, given the false sense of security of having a low breathalyzer number, he may decide to drive despite actually being impaired.

One of the officers who helped conduct the test stressed that the number itself was not important. The number is more a proxy of impaired driving rather than proof of impaired driving. Officers look first for actions such as inability to maintain a driving lane as proof of intoxication. If a person is caught driving in a manner that indicates he’s impaired, he will get pulled over.

Two of the volunteers, women in their late twenties and early thirties, were demonstrating signs of impairment after two rounds of drinks. One woman had trouble walking in a straight line while the other could not maintain a sense of balance. Both women’s breath tests indicated that their BACs were under the legal limit (.071 and .079 respectively).  However, the training officers indicated that they would have arrested both women despite the fact that they “passed” the breath test.

Headed to trial? Got a case that you want to talk about? Call our experienced Idaho criminal defense lawyers today at (208) 342-4633.

Continue Reading How good is that pocket BAC device?

 We don’t usually report on cases that we are involved in, but our lawsuit against Scentsy has garnered questions and news coverage throughout the Northwest. Our client Eva Marosvari came up with an product line for Scentsy – they market this line as Scentsy Buddies. They asked her to develop the product and she did so. When the time came to compensate her for her work – not just the idea – they passed. On the payment that is. The line has generated millions of dollars for Scentsy. We are in the case with Bryan Ulmer from Gerry Spence’s firm. If you want to see some of the coverage, check out the story from KTVB.

This case is really about the simplest of rules that we all live by. It’s what we teach our kids. As explained in "How To Behave and Why," a children’s book that everyone should read, there are some really simple rules that let us all get along: "Good people should not allow [others] to take your property by stealth or otherwise. This is because the world would be a miserable place to live. And no one’s property would be safe." 

I know that Scentsy is big, and successful, and I am sure the folks who run that company are generous. That’s what their lawyer says about them, and most folks who do business with them. I hope they will simply make this right. I hope. 

But if not – well that’s why there are judges and juries.

 Dharun Ravi, 20, a student from New Jersey was recently found guilty by a jury in Middlesex County of bias intimidation, invasion of privacy, and hindering prosecution for using his laptop to secretly record and broadcast an intimate encounter between his Rutgers roommate, Tyler Clementi, and another man.

Clementi later committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge in September 2010, days after being made aware of the incident. Ravi was never charged with Clementi’s death but the case did become a lightning rod for discussions about cyber bullying.

For his crimes Ravi faced up to 10 years in state prison. Sentencing guidelines called for him to get more than a year, but his defense attorney argued that such a sentence would have been a grave injustice, saying that such a lengthy term would have been an attempt to hold Ravi responsible for the death of Clementi.

The probation officer who interviewed Ravi recommended he receive no jail time, based on his clean record and how unlikely he was to reoffend. During the sentencing hearing Clementi’s mother, Jane, cried, asking the judge to do justice for her son. “I am asking the court to do the right thing. The whole country is watching. This… should not be tolerated.” The Clementis argued that Ravi should serve hard time, though not the maximum sentence. Ravi’s mother begged the judge for mercy, describing the unfair attacks leveled against her son, saying he’s been broken to pieces by the trial.

For their part, the prosecution did not seek the maximum term, a bit of a surprise to some, but said they expected more than a mere 30-day jail term. State Superior Court Judge Glenn Berman handed down his sentence ordering Ravi to serve three years’ probation, perform 300 hours of community service, receive mandatory counseling, and pay a $10,000 fee to be used to assist victims of bias crimes. The judge said he would recommend that Ravi, who legally immigrated from India as a child, not be deported. Despite this one prosecutor expressed her disappointment, making clear that she felt a state prison sentence was warranted.

The deal is still more punitive than that originally offered by the prosecution to Ravi. The Government was willing to let Ravi walk away with probation and no jail time if he would plead guilty to a hate crime. His attorney advised against such a plea given that Ravi claims to have harbored no anti-gay bias.

Some in the gay community were critical of the unexpectedly light punishment meted out in the case, saying that it will not serve as a deterrent to other bullies. This sentiment was not uniformly held though as other openly gay legal experts pointed out that in this case there was never any violence committed or threatened against Clementi or his romantic partner. One expert said that he couldn’t think of another case where invasion of privacy alone would be treated as a bias crime as violence (or the threat of violence) is typically involved. In its verdict, the jury agreed, finding that in some instances Ravi’s intentions were not out of hatred or bias, but that Clementi had perceived them as such.

Headed to trial? Got a case that you want to talk about? Call our experienced Idaho criminal defense attorneys today at (208) 342-4633.

As a further explanation of an earlier post, the Supreme Court recently published opinions in two important cases, Lafler v. Cooper and Martinez v. Ryan. The cases recognize two obligations that attorneys owe their clients: (1) the right to effective counsel during plea-bargaining; and (2) a procedural remedy, if not a recognized right, during post-conviction challenges. Both cases set forth the minimum standards of constitutional protections to be afforded individuals during either the plea process or in some situations upon collateral post-conviction.

In Lafler, an attorney’s bad advice led a client to reject a prosecutor’s plea offer, resulting in a harsher sentence after trial. Noteworthy about this case is the Court’s expansion of the right to competent counsel to the plea bargaining process. Previously, there was no specifically recognized right to plea-bargaining or to a competent lawyer at that point. Justice Kennedy wrote the following:

“…as a general rule, defense counsel has the duty to communicate formal offers from the prosecution to accept a plea on terms and conditions that may be favorable to the accused… Because ours ‘is for the most part a system of pleas, not a system of trials,’ the negotiation of a plea bargain, rather than the unfolding of a trial, is almost always the critical point for a defendant.”

In Martinez, the Court recognized the process – without going so far as recognizing the right – of people convicted in state court to receive effective assistance of counsel in collateral state post-conviction proceedings. Historically there has been only a right to effective counsel for direct appeals and no decision has hinted towards a right to counsel for collateral review of a conviction.

Justice Kennedy was careful tiptoeing through the opinion, making sure not to come out and explicitly say that a person has a right to counsel for such collateral proceedings. He did, however, say that there is a procedure by which an individual can seek federal review of a constitutional claim if the person was denied that opportunity in state court because of the ineffectiveness of his or her attorney:

“when a State requires a prisoner to raise an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim in a collateral proceeding, a prisoner may establish cause for a default of an ineffective-assistance claim in two circumstances. The first is where the state courts did not appoint counsel in the initial-review collateral proceeding for a claim of ineffective assistance at trial. The second is where appointed counsel in the initial-review collateral proceeding, where the claim should have been raised, was ineffective under the standards of Strickland v. Washington.”

Both opinions produced harshly critical dissenting opinions from Justice Scalia. Scalia opined that the recent decisions would open the floodgates of litigation for both the newly recognized procedure in post-conviction proceedings and the right to effective counsel during plea negotiations.

Practically speaking the decisions could have substantial impact given that the vast majority of criminal cases are resolved by please rather than trials. While ethics demanded that attorneys relay information regarding plea deals, the law now mandates it. For many clients this is a small but important victory.

Headed to trial? Got a case that you want to talk about? Call our experienced Idaho criminal defense lawyers today at (208) 342-4633.

Continue Reading Important changes for criminal cases from the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently heard arguments surrounding two new cases up for review. Both involved the question of just how severe a penalty imposed on a juvenile offender must be in order to declared unconstitutionally cruel and unusual.

The first case, Miller v. Alabama, involved a 14-year-old in Alabama who beat an older man to death and subsequently burned his house down. Evan Miller, the teen, and a friend stole a collection of baseball cards and $300 from a neighbor. They attacked the man with a baseball bat, and killed him when they set fire to his home. The second case, Jackson v. Hobbs, involved another 14-year-old boy in Arkansas who, along with two older boys, tried to rob a video store in 1999. One of the older boys involved in the robbery shot and killed the store clerk as he was going to call the police. Both Mr. Miller and Mr. Jackson received mandatory sentences of life without parole for murder.

Proponents for harsh penalties point to the “sanctity of life” as the reason a juvenile should be sentenced harshly for crimes involving killings. There age should not be an excuse for punishment given the severity of their crimes. However, in oral arguments, Justice Ginsburg turned the argument around, noting that the same interest in the sanctity of an individual’s life could be used as justification for not severely punishing young offenders. By imposing a life sentence without the possibility on a 14-year-old, the state has essentially thrown away that person’s life.

Those opposed to meting out such harsh sentences believe that teenagers are immature and should be given a more lenient punishment because of that inexperience. While they acknowledge a life sentence is appropriate in such heinous situations, they believe that tacking away even the hope of parole is a step too far for such young criminals. Proponents of harsh punishment worry that teens have less incentive to commit such crimes in the future if they know that all they have to do is claim immaturity when they’re caught.

The Court weighed several possibilities when hearing the case and they include the following options:

·              Prohibiting life without parole sentences for any minor under the age of 15.

·              Prohibiting life without parole sentences for anyone under the age of 18.

·              Ban life without parole sentences for defendants who only acted as accomplices to a crime.

·        Bar mandatory sentences, relying on the discretion of the particular judge to consider all the facts and   circumstances of the case before reaching a decision. 

Headed to trial? Got a case that you want to talk about? Call our experienced Idaho criminal defense lawyers today at (208) 342-4633.

 

Continue Reading Supreme Court weighs question of cruel and unusual punishment for teens