Criminal Defense

Subscribe to Criminal Defense via RSS

 A couple  weeks ago I had a sentencing in front of a District Court judge on the case that attracted a little bit of attention. The cause of that attention was my client’s appearance in his police photo. He didn’t really look all that "innocent."

In fact, many people would simply have generalized much about him based on the tattoos he carried.

Regardless of his many tattoos, I really like this guy. He is pleasant and smart, and he has a quick sense and wit. And he has a couple of prior felony convictions that had landed him in prison.

Based on his appearance and his prior felony convictions, most people likely figured he was headed back to the penitentiary. The crime itself was an aggravated battery in which another young man had been seriously injured.

From the beginning, however, my client had taken full responsibility for his actions. A bar fight ended badly with one punch. The result was a broken jaw and roughly $30,000 in medical bills that needed to be paid. My client was not rich, but he had a job and he had great empathy for the victim. True – the victim had been somewhat responsible for the punch that left him "wired for sound," but my client really felt bad about the injury.

And my client has a son. That’s right – a young son who he loves more than any tattoo, or money or anything else. And through that young son my client’s entire life has changed. The stuff that mattered to him before the birth of his son was of little consequence once that boy had been brought into his life.

It is interesting how important our children are when we are facing "legal consequences" for our actions. In this case, he told the judge that he was completely at fault and his only concern now is making the matter right. He wanted to do everything he could to make life better for the victim and by doing so, to set an example for his son. He said he did not want his son to follow the path he had taken, he hoped his son would avoid spending time behind bars.

When the judge sentenced my client, her first impression was based on his humility, not his ink. She liked him as I had predicted she would and the sentence she ultimately imposed did not include any jail time. He would do what he had agreed to – pay for the medical expenses – and give back to the community. Jail time was held in abeyance – and if he can get that all done in the next few months he will not likely ever go to jail.

Here’s the bottom line – be humble. If you made a shambles of your life, admit it. Come up with a positive solution to the problem you created and be willing to take immediate responsibility.Continue Reading Humility At Sentencing Can Keep You Free

 Ok – I didn’t plan for this to happen again. I was going to blog every other day, or maybe three times a week. I would write about the stuff that people ask me, but then there was work. Phone calls clog my day because I violate the main rule of running my own practice, I keep answering that phone. …

Continue Reading Drugs and pipes and scales in your car? Oh my!

 

"What will you do for me to prepare for trial?"

The question came from a prospective client last week who knew exactly what he was looking for in an experienced Idaho criminal defense lawyer. His case involved a charge of driving under the influence (DUI), but it could have been any crime, because the steps we take in discovery are really the same whether the charge is DUI, grand theft, manslaughter or murder.  

Here are Seven Steps we will take for you:

First – we will request all the information that is available as to the arresting officer and others who have given statements about the case. The officer in a DUI or driving related charge has had training that may be relevant with respect to the case. The same is true with his or her disciplinary record, if any. We want to know more about every potential witness because their testimony makes or breaks the case. 

Second – we will request a copy of any and all video and audio evidence, and then review that evidence and analyze its impact on your case. You need to see and hear that evidence too!

Third – we will request a copy of the dispatch logs from the arrest in your case. Sometimes there is information in the logs that will rebut or explain part of the case.

Fourth – we will visit the scene of the investigation. We need to compare what is in the report with our own observations and experience. We want you there too, so plan to go along and provide us with your side of the story.

Fifth – We will interview any and all witnesses who may have helpful information about your case. Get us the names of everyone you can think of who knows what happened.

Sixth – We will thoroughly review the law, and explain to you how the law and the facts work together in your case.

Seven – We will learn your story, from you and from others who know what happened in your case. Every case is a battle of stories – your version and someone else’s. We need to know you and your past, and we need to get to the heart of your story.

If you have been charged with any crime, call us to discuss how these steps will best prepare us for trial.

 

Continue Reading Seven Steps We Take For You To Prepare for Trial

 Looking back to the first of this year, we have found an edge in each case and used it to gain reduced charges for our clients in the following cases:

In Jerome County, our client BG was charged with felony vehicular manslaughter. A vehicular manslaughter case may take the form of a felony charge if the State relies upon "willful and wanton misconduct" or intoxication as a significant cause of the death of another person. In this case, the State alleged that BG’s reckless operation of his commercial truck resulted in the death of a Sun Valley woman. After considerable investigation and relying on the opinion of other operators, we were able to gain a reduction of the charge to a misdemeanor. The end result meant that our client would not face the possible 15 years in prison authorized under Idaho law.

In Valley County, our client PR was charged with a second driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) as the result of his vehicle having slid off the road last winter. In discovery, we obtained a report of a test of the machine that seemed to indicate the reliability of that test was suspect. The case was reduced to a first DUI and our client permitted the opportunity to complete his sentence by work release.

In Canyon County, our client TB was charged with insurance fraud. He had repaid the questionable money he possessed and we used his admission and restitution to gain a probationary sentence. No conviction (TB took a withheld judgment that will permit dismissal if he successfully completes probation), no jail, no prison.

In Canyon County, our client KH was charged with fish and game violations that would have destroyed his related business. After completing the first day of trial, the State moved to dismiss the case after we showed that fish and game officers had not turned over all the evidence required. A "mystery CD" suddenly surfaced with text messages and emails and photos that would clearly have been relevant.

In Federal Court, our client RBH was charged with violating certain food and drug act prohibitions. The company and its owner faced possible felony charges, huge fines, and prison for its owners. We worked with co-counsel from NY to obtain a misdemeanor corporate plea, and the business paid a fine.

In Power County, our client was charged with possession of controlled substances, a felony. We negotiated a misdemeanor possession charge and probation for TS. A similar situation occurred only a few weeks ago in Adams County, with a resulting dismissal of the felony charges in exchange for a plea to a misdemeanor paraphernalia charge for our client KN.

In Federal Court, our client ST pleaded guilty to one count of distribution of controlled substances instead of the conspiracy to engage in racketeering that would have subjected him to a mandatory minimum 10 years. 

In Ada County, our client RP’s felony trafficking in drugs was reduced to a misdemeanor possession, and he avoided an almost certain lengthy confinement.

In Federal Court in Wyoming, our wrongful death case against Grand Targhee Ski Resort, and Teton County Idaho and Wyoming has been settled for an amount agreed to be confidential. We were only weeks away from trial when a mediation in Casper allowed us to help EF’s heirs. Wrongful death cases against ski areas are tough to win in view of the recreational safety act in both Wyoming and Idaho, as we found out when we tried our last ski death case. Our pal Skip Jacobsen, who is now "of counsel" to the Spence Law Firm out of Jackson, Wyoming served as lead counsel.

Big trials in federal court in August (fraud), Wyoming federal court in September (wrongful death) and securities fraud (federal court October) all washed out – and were either settled or continued. These bigger cases took much of our time over the year, so settlements and continuances have kept us out of court. That, however, is the new norm – with increasing costs to try cases and increased risk of losing at trial, most cases are settled. By preparing for trial, we are able to gain the leverage we need to obtain the best result for our clients.

Here is my "take away" looking back over the first eight months of 2012:

First, our more complex cases have caused us to reject many cases that we simply did not have have time for.

Second, sometimes the best resolution is the certainty achieved by a negotiated settlement. This is particularly true in view of the application of the federal sentencing guidelines.

Third, spending time investigating your case gives us the best chance of helping you succeed at trial, or at the settlement table.

 

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

 

Continue Reading Peterson Lawyers – Boise DUI and Criminal Defense Lawyers – Case Results

Just how would I find the best criminal defense lawyer to help me with a misdemeanor or felony case in Boise Idaho?

This weekend I tried an experiment. I "googled" the words "best Idaho criminal defense lawyer"to see what would happen. The result was not what I expected. Google relies on algorithms and formulas to decide which lawyers they will…

Continue Reading Three tips to help you choose your criminal defense lawyer

 Driving without privileges seems like small potatoes compared to other misdemeanor and felony offenses, doesn’t it?  Unfortunately, it’s not.  A conviction for driving without privileges can send you to jail and then leave you walking to work. 

First, the bad news:

If you are convicted of driving without privileges while your license is suspended, you will likely be sentenced to jail sentence for at least 2 days and up to 6 months.  If you’re lucky enough to be in a larger county (like Ada), you may be able to serve your jail time on the sheriff’s inmate labor detail or by doing community service, but only if you were not previously suspended as a result of a DUI conviction.  If you’re in a smaller county like Valley County, however, you will serve those two days in the jail regardless of the reason for your underlying suspension.  A conviction also carries a fine and court costs, and the loss of your license, again.  The “new” suspension will likely run another 180 days and by statute, this suspension will begin after your current suspension has run its course.  A judge can give you restricted privileges to drive to work, but he or she cannot run the new suspension and the suspension that existed at the time you were charged concurrently, or at the same time.  It must run consecutively.

A second conviction for driving without privileges results in a mandatory 20 days in jail, with a maximum jail sentence of 1 year. Again, your license will be suspended for up to 1 year.  You may be able to serve that time on the Sheriff’s inmate labor detail or community service, but 20 days is a long time to be picking up trash or serving soup.  Many judges have a rule that they will impose a minimum amount of actual jail time before they’ll allow you to have the other options.  If you were caught driving on a DUI suspension, you will not have the luxury of performing community service.  If you’re in a small county that does not offer options, you’ll be stuck in jail for those 20 long days. 

If you’re caught driving without privileges a third time within five years, you’re facing a mandatory 30 days in jail and a suspension of your license for up to 2 years.  Add to this a fine and court costs, and you have yourself some expensive small potatoes.

But there is good news – we can help!

Your driving without privileges charge can often be reduced to driving with an invalid license if (1) you are eligible to reinstate your license, meaning your suspension has run, and (2) you were not driving on a DUI suspension. 

A conviction for driving with an invalid license will not result in another license suspension and is unlikely to land you in jail. We have experience in obtaining this result for many of our clients. 

In trouble for driving without privileges?  You need a lawyer who has experience in negotiating down this charge and preserving your freedom.  Give us a call. 

 

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

 

Continue Reading Driving Without Privileges charges reduced!

 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?

 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…

Continue Reading Sentence handed down in New Jersey cyber bullying case questioned by both sides

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