criminal defense

Reducing sentences has been a common topic lately in the United States. Recently, a judge rethought a sentence that had a profound impact on an inmate named Francois Holloway.

Holloway was released from prison three years earlier than expected thanks to U.S. District Judge John Gleeson in Brooklyn, New York.

Although federal trial judges don’t commonly possess extraordinary power when it comes to sentencing decisions as prosecutors rely on set in stone minimum punishment laws, typically new evidence or excessive legal error are the only ways a reduction on their part is possible.

However, judges can create a sense of public or personal pressure that causes prosecutors to rethink their sentencing decisions. When these types of situations occur, such as Holloway’s sentence reduction, it reveals attitudes continue to change in these types of circumstances, looking at the criminal justice system and its policies in a new light.

Holloway was sentenced to 57 years in prison in 1996 for being a part of armed carjackings, but Judge Gleeson who had put Holloway away, attempted to work with prosecutors for years in order to reduce Holloway’s sentence, before he was released early.

Which kind of cases does this deal typically happen to though? Thus far, these types of reductions have occurred for those who fought against sentencing that seemed underserved compared to the crime they committed.

In most cases, the defendant at hand decided against a plea deal and then lost during their trial. As a result, they were given a much more extensive prison sentence than if they were to have pleaded guilty.

These types of cases and this shift in the criminal justice system might be more common as 2016 approaches. Instead of focusing on a prison sentence, one might look towards court ordered rehabilitation if the consequence seems fitting for the crime.

However, not everyone agrees on this. In the same article, “Don Mihalek, vice president of law enforcement relations at the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association said that after the-fact reductions send the wrong message,” according to Joe Palazzo, author of the article “Judges Rethink Sentences.”

Said Mihalek: “Every criminal has their day in court, and that’s the bottom line.”

Use-of-force complaints decrease significantly for police departments equipped with body cameras, but the cost could hold some, like the Phoenix Police Department, from taking advantage of this technology.

A year-long study evaluating the effect of body-worn video cameras in police patrol practices by the Police Foundation Executive Fellow, Chief Tony Farrar, found a 50 percent decrease in the number of use-of-force complaints against officers wearing the cameras.

It would cost at least $3.5 million to equip all first-responding Phoenix officers with body cameras, Phoenix Police Chief Joe Yahner said. That price estimate includes the costs to gather and store footage, but wouldn’t cover the cost of personnel.

Many small and medium-sized cities like Austin and Minneapolis are utilizing these cameras to increase police accountability and transparency in light of growing tension between communities and local police departments around the country.

Phoenix, the country’s sixth most populated city, is moving toward using body cameras after an Arizona State University study found that complaints against officers decreased when actions of both officers and citizens were recorded.

A study of Mesa police officers who wore body cameras saw a 40 percent decrease in total complaints and a 75 percent decrease in the number of use-of-force complaints over the course of a year.

In order for Phoenix to implement this technology, police would have to create a policy that dictates how to manage and edit mass quantities of data, then share it with prosecutors.

In the near future, supporters advocating for Phoenix police to wear body cameras say that both citizens and officers would benefit. Officers would be protected from false allegations and citizens could rest assured knowing that all interactions with police would be recorded.

Del. Joseph D. Morrissey, 57, resigned his seat after being charged for a sex scandal involving a teenage employee but recently won it back during a special election, which he campaigned for from his office as a legislator by day, returning to jail at night to serve time for misdemeanor charges. Now, he’s being indicted on multiple new felony charges.

Morrissey was convicted last month for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He was originally charged with multiple felony charges for being sexually involved with a young woman, prosecutors allege, but instead agreed to a plea deal requiring him to serve six months in jail for misdemeanor charges.

Prosecutors accused Morrissey of having sex with former 17-year-old employee Myrna Pride, saying nude photos of the girl from Morrissey’s cellphone were shared with a friend, AP reports.

Pride, now 18, is pregnant and both she and Morrissey said the accusations are not true. It is unclear whether Morrissey is the father.

His sentence was later reduced to 90 days with work release. Morrissey wears an ankle bracelet so that Virginia law enforcement can keep track of him while he goes to work during the day, and then he returns to jail at night.

Morrissey’s defense team released a new document showing that he and Pride were meeting to discuss legal problems she was having with her parents – not to engage in an illegal relationship.

The document is a fabricated court order, said special prosecutor to the case William Neely in an article in the Washington Post. However, who forged it is still under investigation.

Morrissey is accused of forging the document and persuading Pride’s mother, Deidre Lashawn Warren, to swear to its authenticity during her testimony, Virginia publication The Free Lance-Star said. Both are facing perjury and forgery charges.

Due to urges from the House, Morrissey resigned his seat until reelection time when he ran as an independent and won over his constituency with approximately 42 percent of votes.

Morrissey has been able to run for reelection despite his legal problems because the Constitution only requires that the person running lives in the state at hand, is at least 25 years old and has been a U.S. citizen for seven years. It’s up to the members of Congress in each state to determine whether a person, if elected, is qualified and can go through the process of expelling or suspending the him or her if enough votes are gathered.

Virginia House delegates have been disturbed by the sex scandal, and although Morrissey has been sworn in again, he was stripped of committee assignments, had to give up his old office and his desk on the House floor was put in a far corner, according to the AP.

“This is a truly painful and embarrassing chapter for the oldest continuously operating legislative body in the world,” said House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford). “The House will evaluate these new indictments as it pertains to disciplinary action,” he said in The Washington Post.

This is not the first time Morrissey has been in the news. In 1993, he gained the nickname “Fighting Joe” after engaging in a fistfight with another lawyer in court. He has also faced several contempt of court citations and lost his license to practice law but was later reinstated.

Morrissey is popular among voters, and is well liked for being a representative who fights for the underdog. Even if the House decides to expel him – this hasn’t happened since 1876 – Morrissey has a strong following of voters who could support him.

Gideon’s Law states that under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, every state has an obligation to provide counsel in criminal cases to represent those defendants who can’t afford to hire a private attorney.

However, many people have a misunderstanding of the public defense system and do not realize that choosing a public defender over a private attorney can be very hurtful to the outcome of their case resulting in a higher chance of being convicted as well as more severe punishment during sentencing.

Anyone who is in need of a defense lawyer should consider every aspect of using the public defense system. There are some serious issues plaguing the system including the fact that public defense lawyers are given hundreds upon hundreds of cases over the course of a year. This only allows lawyers enough time to spend 2 hours or less on each case.

In some cases a public defender technically has only minutes to spend on each assigned case and is given more than 800 cases annually. More than half of the countries legal systems also prevent public defenders from refusing to take on additional new cases.

With such minimal amount of time dedicated to each client, many defendants are simply encouraged to enter a guilty plea for the sake of resolving the case even if they might have otherwise had a relatively high chance of successfully fighting the charges against them.

Another large issue with the public defense system is a severe lack of funding. The result is that defenders do not have the necessary means to access certain resources that could make or break a case such as legal research, investigators and field experts.

More importantly, due to the problems with funding, those who are under the impression that they will save loads of money by using a public defender may be disappointed after finding themselves having to pay high amounts of court fees.

According to NPR, there has been a huge growth in the use of court fines and fees to finance the criminal justice system and other state programs. An NPR survey found that 43 states require defendants to pay fees in order to have a public defender represent them in court.

With a private attorney, there is no need to be concerned about those issues that are all too common in the public defense system. Opting to hire a private attorney gives the defendant a greater fighting chance of winning their case and saves him/her from having to worry about whether or not they are receiving the best representation in court.

Private attorneys have the education, time and resources to spend working each client’s case and will fight to get the best outcome possible in court.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sherry Stephens tried to close courtroom doors during part of the retrial of Jodi Arias to accommodate a secret witness testimony, but the testimony has been delayed, and the court remains open to the public, court officials said.

The trial is in the penalty phase with a new jury impaneled last month due to a deadlock in May 2013. The original jury determined that Arias was eligible for the death penalty, but no conclusion was made on which punishment she would receive, The Huffington Post said.

Now, the second jury will determine once again whether Arias will face the death penalty.

At the request of the defense attorneys to Arias, Judge Stephens closed the court Thursday, Oct. 30, for a new testimonial from a witness who wished to remain unidentified in this highly publicized case.

The following Monday, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that the public should be allowed to view courtroom testimony during such an important, high-profile case that has garnered attention across the nation, Reuters reports.

As a result of this decision, Stephens is temporarily restricted from taking any further testimony from witnesses while closing doors to the the media and the public.

The Jodi Arias case has been unpredictable from the start, but Stephens taking legal matters into her own hands and causing a media block-out is the latest twist to the story, keeping Arizona, and the rest of the country, on its toes.

Arias, 34, was convicted of murdering her ex-boyfriend, Travis Alexander, 30, after he decided to end their relationship. Prosecutors accused her of acting in a jealous rage, but Arias said she acted in self-defense.

Alexander was stabbed more than 30 times, nearly beheaded from a slash to the throat and shot in the forehead. Friends found his body days later in the shower of his Mesa home.

If the new jury deadlocks again, it will be up to a judge to determine whether Arias will be sentenced to life in prison or life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years, The Arizona Republic said.

The Detroit man who argued self defense for shooting and killing an unarmed teen on his front porch was convicted of second-degree murder by a Wayne County jury Thursday, August 7.

Theodore Wafer, a 55-year-old airport worker, heard banging on his front door early in the morning on Nov. 2. He opened the front door of his home and shot Renisha McBride through the locked screen door, killing the 19-year-old student.

Wafer testified saying that he shot McBride in self defense because he feared a break in and was scared for his life, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Why McBride ended up at Wafer’s home that night is still not clear, however prosecutors claim she walked a half mile to his home seeking help after a car accident.

Earlier that night, after consuming alcohol and using marijuana, McBride drove her car into a parked vehicle in Detroit. She was injured at the time, bleeding, disoriented and possibly suffering from concussions, but witnesses said she refused help after the incident, USA Today reports.

Initially, this case sparked racial concerns in Detroit communities where racial tension can be strong, and comparisons were drawn between the McBride and Trayvon Martin cases as both involved unarmed, black teens who were each killed by white men.

Unlike the Trayvon Martin case however, the charges were filed against the defendant within two weeks of McBride’s death and racial concerns were put to rest.

“That could have been anybody’s kid,” said Walter Simmons, McBride’s father, in response to race being a factor in his daughter’s death.

“I think he was ready for whoever came to his door,” Simmons said, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Michigan’s gun laws, such as the Castle Doctrine Law states in short that the use of deadly force may be accepted as an act of self-defense as long as an honest and reasonable belief that death, great bodily harm that may lead to death or sexual assault may result to himself or herself or another individual during a break in, home or business invasion, an unlawful occupation or an attempt to remove individuals from their homes or vehicles, according to the state’s Public Act 311 of 2006.

In other words, residents have the right to protect their homes, businesses and vehicles using firearms, but the severity of the force used must match the potential threat.

A jury of five women and seven men did not believe that circumstances between McBride and Wafer granted Wafer the right to use deadly force against McBride, and they did not accept his self defense claims.

Wafer was convicted of second-degree murder, as well as separate charges of manslaughter and using a firearm to commit a felony, the Wall Street Journal said.

Monica McBride, Renisha’s mother, said that her daughter was not a violent person and that Wafer should have called 911 for assistance when he was awoken.

The sentencing will take place August 25. Wafer could face life in prison, according USA Today.

Make sure you know and understand Arizona’s self defense and violent crime rights. The expert criminal law attorneys at Corso Law Group can help.

The fatal shooting of an unarmed African American teen in Ferguson, Mo. by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson Saturday, August 9, has given rise to an FBI civil rights investigation, protests and local rioting.

The cause of the altercation between Michael Brown, 18, and Wilson, whose identity wasn’t released for weeks after the incident, remains unclear as witnesses to the event tell one story and law enforcement another.

Dorian Johnson, 22, told CNN that he and Brown were walking to a family member’s home when police yelled at them to get out of the street. As the two explained that they were about to arrive at their destination, Wilson became angry, aggressively driving forward and hitting brown with the car door.

Then, Dorian said Wilson pulled Brown in by the neck toward the car and shot him.

Dorian and an injured Brown struggled to run away, but Brown was shot numerous times, forcing him to slow down as he held his hands above his head in surrender, begging Wilson to stop shooting.

Moments later, Dorian said Wilson fired another shot, killing Brown.

In contrast, Ferguson Police share a completely disparate report, claiming Brown attacked Wilson inside his vehicle, struggled for his weapon causing an initial shot to be fired inside the car.

Then, Ferguson police say Brown and Dorian ran from the scene, and Brown was shot and killed several feet away.

Wilson shot Brown a total of six times during the altercation. A privately conducted autopsy revealed that it was the sixth shot to the top of the head that killed Brown, and the St. Louis County medical examiner’s office confirmed that the cause of death was gunshot wounds to the head and chest, ABC News said.

Although the two stories remain divided, one factor that rings true among all accounts is that Brown was unarmed at the time of the incident. Belmar said that every bullet casing from the scene belonged to Wilson, CNN reports.

Since Brown’s death, tension has skyrocketed in the Ferguson area, a working class suburb of 21,000, where a history of distrust and conflict exists between residents who are predominantly black and a primarily white police force, CNN said.

The largest protests have been peaceful, according to the Los Angeles Times, where the slogan “Hands up, don’t shoot,” can be seen on posters and acted out by protesters, reminding those that Brown was unarmed and reportedly in a position of surrender when he was shot.

However, many protests have transformed into local riots throughout the weeks following Brown’s death.

Ferguson locals were upset that officials did not immediately reveal Wilson’s identity, the Alton Daily News reports. However, Wilson’s name was not disclosed at first because death threats were made to a misidentified officer from an incorrect rumor, the Los Angeles Times said.

St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch said that details about the case would not be released to the public as the investigation is still underway and authorities need witnesses to stay credible, the Los Angeles Times said.

Frustration due to lack of information surrounding the case has lead to the vandalization of local businesses which police reportedly have controlled using tear gas and rubber bullets to control the uproar and close off areas, ABC news said.

Riots continued in Ferguson on Tuesday, August 19, when police fatally shot a man who had charged officers with a knife. Others have been wounded and numerous arrests have been made.

In response to violent outbreaks, local authorities are urging protesters to rally peacefully during the day to avoid causing any more harm to an already shaken community.

President Obama has weighed in as well saying in a statement earlier in the week that the FBI, civil rights attorneys from the Justice Department and the St. Louis County Police Department are each currently investigating the Ferguson shooting, and they will continue to direct resources to the case as needed.

“I know the events of the past few days have prompted strong passions, but as details unfold, I urge everyone in Ferguson, Missouri, and across the country, to remember this young man through reflection and understanding,” Obama said according to The Wire.

The St. Louis County prosecutor said that results from the shooting and whether or not Wilson will be indicted may take until October to decide, as a grand jury must carefully examine evidence from the case.

Brown was a recent high school graduate scheduled to begin college courses the following Monday, two days after he was killed. Friends called him “Big Mike,” and his mother Lesley McSpadden referred to her son as a “Gentle Giant.”

There are few feelings worse than the sinking feeling in your stomach when you see flashing blue and red lights in your rearview mirror.

When getting pulled over, the last thing you want to do is get yourself into even more trouble by putting your foot in your mouth or saying anything offensive to an officer. Being difficult, aggressive, or condescending will only land you in deeper trouble with an officer and can even result in he or she tacking on extra charges to your ticket. When interacting with an officer, avoid all of the following behaviors and phrases if you want to stay on an officer’s good side.

“I wasn’t doing anything wrong”: It’s generally a good idea not to argue or don an aggressive tone with a police officer, because an officer’s penal decisions can often be based on how cooperative or accommodating a citizen is. To insist that you haven’t done anything wrong implies that the officer doesn’t know what he’s doing, and that condescending implication can sometimes land you in even more trouble.

“Baby/ Sweetheart/ Honey”: Sweet-talking an officer with these sort of affectionate nicknames undermines their authority and gives the appearance that you lack respect. Professionalism is key when interacting with an officer, so stick with “sir,” “ma’am,” or just plain-old “officer” when interacting with a cop.

“I was just trying to keep up with traffic”: This and similar statements invoke the classic “If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you, too?” idiom, and coming up with excuses only betrays your nerves. A police officer does not view laws as flexible, so blaming your violations on the actions of others won’t change his mind about the illegality of your actions.

“My taxes pay your salary”: This indignant claim won’t carry much weight with an officer. Chances are, he or she won’t perceive you paying your taxes as a personal favor, considering the fact you as a citizen are legally mandated to do so. These sorts of statements also run the risk of sounding like bribery or a leveraging of the situation to get yourself out of trouble, which will only serve to irk and offend the officer.

“I’m in kind of a hurry here”: Insinuating that your time is more important than a police officer’s will only come across as offensive and condescending. Officers do not base their charges on situational context like if the violator in question is running late for something, and showing any sort of impatience or annoyance will put you on an officer’s bad side.

Any jokes about having a body in the trunk, a gun in the glove box, etc: These comments make it seem like you aren’t taking the situation seriously and belittle serious offenses. Officers are on guard at all times for any major trouble or potential violence in a criminal setting and take everything very literally, so they don’t take kindly to you belittling or making light of a serious situation.

Tip: Always keep be honest. Police officers are trained to detect giveaways that someone is lying, like blinking, touching one’s face, and avoiding eye contact. Testing an officer’s ability to tell if you’re lying is a dangerous game, and the repercussions for lying to an officer, which can include inordinate fees and even jail time, just aren’t worth the risk. Your best bet for getting out as hassle-free as possible is to comply with the officer’s demands and maintain a patient, polite tone at all times.

The experienced attorneys at Corso Law Group serve clients throughout Arizona, including the cities of Ahwatukee, Avondale, Buckeye, Chandler, El Mirage, Gilbert, Glendale, Goodyear, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Sun City, Surprise, Tempe, Tolleson and Youngtown.

To schedule a free consultation, please visit www.corsolawgroup.com or call (480) 471-4616. Corso Law Group, PLLC is located at 17470 N. Pacesetter Way Scottsdale, AZ 85255.

Parents and politicians are up in arms over a powdered alcohol that they worry will find its way into the hands of underage children.

Approval was erroneously given to powdered alcohol by The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau on April 18, and was voluntarily withdrawn 13 days later due to public outcry. However, Palcohol remains to be a concern for many states, several of which are banning it altogether.

Palcohol is a lightweight powdered alcohol, originally developed by Arizona resident Mark Phillips, which is added to liquids or foods to make alcoholic substances anywhere, any time.

The Palcohol website has been cleared of its original content since the approval error in April, but it previously suggested that it should be sold just like any other alcoholic drink, meaning that it would be sold where liquid alcohol is sold, and buyers would have to be of legal drinking age to purchase it.

Despite these restrictions, opponents are worried that the powder will fall into the hands of minors who will abuse the alcohol by loading up drinks or snorting it.

“What’s to stop somebody from mixing two or three packets with that amount of liquid and really beefing up the alcoholic content,” Ohio State Representative Jim Buchy, (R) 84th District said regarding a proposed ban of Palcohol in Ohio according to ABC 22.

According to Gawker, the Palcohol website originally addressed the topic of snorting the product by admitting that it can be done.

“Yes, you can snort it,” the Palcohol website stated, “And you’ll get drunk almost instantly because the alcohol will be absorbed so quickly in your nose. Good idea? No. It will mess you up. Use Palcohol responsibly.”

Teens around the country are already experimenting with new ways to get drunk using vapors and powdered alcohol, which isn’t sold in the U.S. but can be found for purchase online from other countries, and suffering the consequences, CBS Denver reports.

“We’ve had a few patients that have been very intoxicated. One that I know of had to have a breathing tube put in and we had to breathe for them for a period of time because they were not breathing adequately on their own,” said Dr. Christopher Colwell, Chief of Emergency Medicine at Denver Health in an interview with CBS Denver.

Growing concern for abuse of powdered alcohol and its effects have been grounds enough to ban Palcohol altogether from Alaska and South Carolina. New York, Vermont, Minnesota and Ohio are currently proposing legislation to ban it as well, ABC 22 said.

So what could the increasing popularity of powdered alcohol mean for Arizona residents?

For starters, regulation of the powder would be tough considering the substance is easy to conceal, leading to DUI arrests and even deaths from Palcohol abuse.

Arizona tied with Wyoming for the fourth-highest rate of alcohol-related deaths among its working-age population from 2006 to 2010, according to a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study, AZCentral reports.

And in 2012, the Foundation for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility reported 227 total alcohol-impaired driving fatalities in Arizona, with 29 fatalities reported as minors.

While it seems powdered alcohol could negatively affect Arizona and other states that are already troubled by alcohol abuse, the impact of powdered alcohol on Arizona citizens and law enforcement remains unclear, but it is important to understand your DUI rights and laws despite these uncertainties.

The Arizona DUI defense attorneys at Corso Law Group do everything in their power to protect defendants and advocate for their rights. They have the experience and expertise to deal with DUI charges in Arizona and will fight to get the charges dismissed.

In April, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that drivers with traces of marijuana found in the body after a drug test can not receive DUI charges if the existing chemical compounds do not cause impairment.

This overturned the Court of Appeals decision from last year that gave prosecutors the right to charge marijuana users with DUIs without proof that they were physically impaired at the time of arrest.

Attention to this issue was brought to the higher court when an Arizona man was pulled over by police for speeding and unsafe lane changes. He admitted to smoking marijuana the night before and consented to a drug test where marijuana metabolites were later detected.

Chemical compounds left in the man’s body from previous marijuana intake were carboxy-tetrahydrocannabinol, or carboxy-THC, a non-impairing metabolite of marijuana that can remain in the body for up to 30 days after marijuana use, the Huffington Post reports.

The man was charged with two counts of DUI for driving while impaired and for driving with drugs in his system although the marijuana metabolites were non-impairing, the Arizona Department of Health Services said.

His case was appealed and the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the Arizona DUI law,A.R.S. 28-1381 that says it is unlawful to operate a vehicle while there is marijuana and its metabolite in the body, is too ambiguous because it does not distinguish between the different marijuana metabolites.

“We do not believe that the legislature contemplated penalizing the presence of a metabolite that is not impairing,” the court said of the DUI offense according to the AZDHS Medical Marijuana Program newsletter.

With states like Colorado and Washington, where recreational marijuana is legal, and 23 other states including DC that have legalized medicinal marijuana, including Arizona in 2010, legislation concerning DUI charges and how they should be applied to marijuana users are topics worth discussion.

For example, the Arizona Supreme Court ruling affects the 40,000 medical marijuana users in Arizona and out of state visitors who use marijuana by protecting them from wrongful DUI charges, the Arizona Capitol Times said.

Now, medical marijuana users in Arizona can drive without their legal actions being criminalized by law enforcement, however it is always important to understand your DUI laws and rights.

The Arizona DUI defense attorneys at Corso Law Group do everything in their power to protect defendants and advocate for their rights. They have the experience and expertise to deal with DUI charges in Arizona and will fight to get the charges dismissed.