by admin | Jul 1, 2013 | Uncategorized
Almost daily news reports have described details of how easy it seems to be for the government to track, listen in, and track down possible criminal suspects. But technology doesn’t always play a part in every case, no matter how much a popular television show may seem to show. Having said that, recent investigations of the Boston terror attacks, and evidence used in bringing the murder charges against the NFL Patriot’s Aaron Hernandez, are showing the real uses of technology in modern court trials. One aspect of increased electronic eavesdropping (such as cell phone records) in evidence means defendants need to work only with the most experienced criminal defense lawyers. Criminal defense lawyers are often using their own knowledge of the flaws and limits in technology to fight fire with fire. In Hernandez’s case, there were three separate sets of digital surveillance that the prosecution has largely based its case on: surveillance videos, cell phone records, and cell phone towers. Much of the evidence even came from video surveillance cameras that Hernandez had installed in his own home: more than a dozen cameras were scattered through Hernandez’s home. The movements of Hernandez up and down Interstate 95 were also based on the records of his cell phone use, collected from the series of cell phone towers. At the same time Hernandez’s movements were allegedly recreated electronically, almost minute-by-minute, so were the murder victim’s. But differences (or lack of specifics) may also be used by an experienced criminal defense lawyer to help show innocence of an accused. As Hernandez’s criminal defense lawyer noted, much of the evidence rests on a...
by admin | Jul 1, 2013 | Fairfax DUI / DWI
An improper U-turn can cost a person a lot more than we may imagine. This thought comes from a recent event that took place on the night of May 13th. Lynchburg police officer stopped a sports utility vehicle after it took a u-turn which the officer thought was improper. The car was allegedly being driven by David M. LeFevre Sr., a 52-year-old Chesapeake resident and the principal of Holland Elementary School in Virginia Beach. The breach was not as grave until the police officer sought a breath or blood test to check for any sort of intoxication which Mr. LeFevre refused to do. He has, reportedly, resigned from the office of principal on account of ‘personal reasons’ after being slapped with charges of making an improper U-turn, driving while intoxicated and refusing to take a blood or breath test. As per Lynchburg district court records, he is due for an arraignment hearing on July 18th. Under the laws of Virginia, first offense DUI might entail administrative license suspension for 7 days; up to 12 months in jail, a minimum fine of $250, up to a maximum fine of $2500; license revocation for 1 year; possible ignition interlock device; possible restricted driver’s license; any court-ordered restitution; possible Alcohol Safety Action Program...
by admin | Jul 1, 2013 | Uncategorized
It’s common knowledge that the right to remain silent is a fundamental constitutional protection for anyone who is arrested and read their Miranda rights. But an important recent Supreme Court decision makes it clear you don’t have the same level of protection if you are not in custody but are being questioned by police. In the case of Salinas v. Texas on June 17, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not protect the silence of a witness in a voluntary, noncustodial police interview. If you choose to voluntarily speak to the police when you are not in custody you have to invoke the privilege in a timely manner to benefit from its protections. In other words if you are being questioned pre arrest, merely remaining silent is not enough for your Fifth Amendment right to kick in. Right to Remain Silent To protect your right to remain silent pre-arrest, it is important to respond to police questioning by pointing out clearly you are taking the Fifth Amendment and intend to remain silent after every question. In the case two brothers were shot at a home in Houston, Texas. There were no witnesses to the shooting. Police invited Genovevo Salinas, who had been at a party at that house the night before the shooting, to the station where they talked for about an hour. Police said Salinas became quiet and edgy when asked about a shotgun. At trial Salinas didn’t testify. Prosecutors brought up his reportedly uncomfortable reaction to the question about his shotgun. Salinas argued they violated his Fifth Amendment rights...
by admin | Jul 1, 2013 | Traffic Charges
30-year old Michelle Lynn Warnick has a penchant for creating trouble which usually seems to end in hi-speed chases. Not content with being arrested on May 5 after a police pursuit. Warnick allegedly put up a repeat performance on June 22. However, unlike the earlier episode that landed two other people apart from Warnick in the hospital, this one was a mild incident. It all started on Saturday afternoon, June 22, around 2 o’clock when the staff at the Best Buy on Retail Commons Parkway, Martinsburg, spotted Warnick shoplifting a cellphone case. They allege that they tried to detain her and two employees escorted her to an office until the authorities arrived. Warnick, however, managed to shove them aside, running out of the store on foot and later escaping in a red Jeep Liberty. The policemen who arrived at the retail outlet in response to the complaint, chased down Warnick who was not just speeding but negotiating turns recklessly and travelling left off center, according to a police report. She was finally cornered on Apple Harvest Drive where she abandoned the Jeep and hid in a barn where the police finally discovered her. They also recovered a small purse a few feet away from her containing heroin, syringes, and drug related paraphernalia. A second purse in the jeep had a bottle with over two dozen Oxycodone pills – a prescription drug. Michelle Lynn Warnick was arraigned the following day (Sunday, June 23) on felony charges of possession with intent to distribute heroin and Oxycodone and fleeing in a vehicle with reckless indifference. In addition, misdemeanor charges of driving on...
by admin | Jul 1, 2013 | Uncategorized
Almost daily news reports have described details of how easy it seems to be for the government to track, listen in, and track down possible criminal suspects. But technology doesn’t always play a part in every case, no matter how much a popular television show may seem to show. Having said that, recent investigations of the Boston terror attacks, and evidence used in bringing the murder charges against the NFL Patriot’s Aaron Hernandez, are showing the real uses of technology in modern court trials. One aspect of increased electronic eavesdropping (such as cell phone records) in evidence means defendants need to work only with the most experienced criminal defense lawyers. Criminal defense lawyers are often using their own knowledge of the flaws and limits in technology to fight fire with fire. In Hernandez’s case, there were three separate sets of digital surveillance that the prosecution has largely based its case on: surveillance videos, cell phone records, and cell phone towers. Much of the evidence even came from video surveillance cameras that Hernandez had installed in his own home: more than a dozen cameras were scattered through Hernandez’s home. The movements of Hernandez up and down Interstate 95 were also based on the records of his cell phone use, collected from the series of cell phone towers. At the same time Hernandez’s movements were allegedly recreated electronically, almost minute-by-minute, so were the murder victim’s. But differences (or lack of specifics) may also be used by an experienced criminal defense lawyer to help show innocence of an accused. As Hernandez’s criminal defense lawyer noted, much of the evidence rests on a...
