In my experience most prosecutors play by the rules.  They know their ethical duties and abide by them.  However, I, along with many of my colleagues, have observed a growing number of prosecutors that have no problem stepping over the ethics line.  The issue seems more to do with ignorance than intent.

For the most part, the public is unaware of this growing problem.  It is only when the misconduct is so outrageous and the victim has the means to fight it does the misconduct make its way to the public’s attention (e.g. the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case.)   When prosecutorial misconduct truly does occur, only a small percentage of prosecutors are disciplined for their actions.  Apparently, a new report from the Northern California Innocence Project at Santa Clara University School of Law demonstrates this problem is not isolated to Arizona.

The Report examined more than 4,000 cases where prosecutorial misconduct was alleged over a twelve year period.  The Report found that courts only made prosecutorial misconduct a finding in approximately 700 of 4,000 of the cases.  In those 700 cases, only six (6) prosecutors were charged with misconduct.  Obviously, as a former prosecutor, I understand that when someone is convicted of a crime, it may result in a frivolous claim; still these numbers are still extraordinary.

In addition, this report determined that judges often failed to report prosecutorial misconduct to the state bar despite their legal obligation to notify the bar of such behavior.  Although over sixty prosecutors (60) committed misconduct more than once, and some more than five times, the majority of those prosecutors were never publicly disciplined.

In response to the report, the State Bar of California, issued the following written statement:

“Prosecutorial misconduct as indicated in the Innocence Project report does not always equate with attorney misconduct for disciplinary purposes.  The State Bar believes that it is disciplining criminal prosecutors where appropriate and where the misconduct was willful and can be established by clear and convincing evidence.”

If you have a specific legal question regarding prosecutorial misconduct in an Arizona Criminal Case, please contact The Koplow Law Firm at 602-494-3444.

Lawrence Koplow

On July 28, 2010 the federal district court issued an injunction to part of the highly publicized and talked about immigration bill in Arizona, known through-out the country as SB 1070.

Practically speaking, this means that part of the bill is not enforceable until the appellate courts determine its constitutionality. Judge Susan Bolton had to read the bill piece by piece and line by line using the appropriate legal standards, statutes, and case law, to determine which provisions of the bill were constitutional, and which were not.

When the United States brought the lawsuit against the state of Arizona, their main legal argument was that Arizona could not make immigration law, because that is a power given only to the Federal Government. Arizona argued that this bill added to already existing Arizona statutes and that Arizona was not stepping on or over, the current federal laws.  The legal principal at issue is known as Federal Preemption.

For the most part, the decision of the court at this point was to allow Arizona to continue to enforce some parts of the bill. The sections of the law left in place include:

• Making it a crime to knowingly or intentionally employ an illegal alien

• Requiring employers to check for the immigration eligibility of an employee

• Making it a crime to smuggle human being across the border

• Making it a crime to stop a car to pick up day laborers if it interrupts the normal flow of traffic

• Impounding vehicles that were used for transportation or harboring people who are unlawfully in the United States

• Allowing Arizona to create the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission Fund

This order also prevents Arizona law enforcement from enforcing some of the bill.  The sections of the law struck down by the court include:

• Making it a crime for persons not to carry their registration papers

• Having the status of a person’s immigration checked before releasing them from custody

• Allowing a warrantless arrest based on probable cause of a person who is believed to have committed a crime that would subject them to removal from the United States

To read the entire decision, click on here.

The Arizona Supreme Court also addressed the federal court’s decision on SB 1070.  Soon after the federal court’s ruling the Arizona Supreme Court released an Administrative Order regarding the bill.  The Order made changes to procedures and forms used when an illegal alien is arrested, or sentenced. For example, if a criminal defendant is sentenced, including even to pay a fine, and it has been found that the defendant is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, the judge must include this fact in the sentencing report. Then the clerk of the court must submit that report to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office.

The form used at the time of arrest will be modified to include a place for the law enforcement agent to ask the person in custody for his place of birth, country of citizenship, and amount of time present in the United States. The form also includes a place for the law enforcement agent to spell out what the reasonable suspicion was that prompted the law enforcement agent to make the arrest, and a reminder to the agent to check with Federal Immigration Agencies to verify the immigration status of the defendant.

If you have a question about a specific legal issue, please contact The Koplow Law Firm.

Lawrence Koplow

Here is a round up of the best criminal defense blog posts for July, 2010.  I always look for posts that provide either strong opinion, insight or novel information.  While July had a great selection to choose from, here are the top five:

• The Hatred of Being In Trial – published by Brian Tannebaum a Miami criminal defense attorney.  He provides his view of doing trial work and being a criminal defense attorney.

• Blagojevich Recap (Part II) – published by Tom Whithers a Georgia criminal defense attorney.  Mr. Withers presents a thourough and detailed recap of the Blagojevich trial.

• Only Teletubbies Live In The Comfort Zone – published by Scott Greenfield a New York criminal defense attorney.  Mr. Greenfield discusses how lawyers should be using social media.

• A New Approach To Felony Murder And A New Template To Attack Precedent In Georgia – published by Scott Key’s Geogia Crimial criminal appeals attorney in Georgia.

• On Jumping Without A Parachute – published by the great Gerry Spence.  Gerry discusses what is next for him and shares his philosophy and wisdom.

If you have written a post, or have read one that you think may qualify for the Best In Criminal Defense, then please let me know.

Lawrence Koplow

]]> http://www.arizonacriminaldefenseblog.com/2010/best-in-criminal-defense-july-2010/feed/ 0 http://www.arizonacriminaldefenseblog.com/2010/if-its-broken-does-it-matter-who-broke-it/ http://www.arizonacriminaldefenseblog.com/2010/if-its-broken-does-it-matter-who-broke-it/#comments Fri, 25 Jun 2010 22:27:23 +0000 admin http://www.arizonacriminaldefenseblog.com/?p=946

At the core of the United States Constitution is the principle of Due Process.  In its most basic form, this principle provides that the government must respect all of the legal rights owed to the people. One of those legal rights is the guarantee of a fair trial to a person accused of a crime.A…

At the core of the United States Constitution is the principle of Due Process.  In its most basic form, this principle provides that the government must respect all of the legal rights owed to the people. One of those legal rights is the guarantee of a fair trial to a person accused of a crime.A fair trial includes preventing the State from unfair or suggestive identifications which would direct a witness to make a false identification. The most common situation where these protections are needed is a “line-up.”  This is a procedure where a witness tries to identify someone that may have committed a crime.

In State v. Garcia, a man appealed his armed robbery and murder convictions based on a flier containing a photograph. Here, when police arrived on scene, a witness provided a detailed description of the first man to walk into the bar. A few days later, the police showed the same witness a photographic line-up.  Garcia’s picture was included in a group of photos.  The witness failed to identify Garcia in the picture line-up.

Television stations were later given pictures from a security camera to help find the suspects.  It appears the pictures may have been provided by the police.  Subsequently, the police contacted the witness that failed to identify Garcia in the photographic line-up (and other witnesses); and told them not to watch any news broadcasts or any other coverage regarding the shooting.

However, despite the warning, the witness that previously failed to identify Garcia saw a “reward flier” containing the picture released by law enforcement. A key fact (for the court) was the reward fliers were not made, or passed out by the police.  Later, Garcia’s attorneys argued this identification was unfairly suggestive.  A motion to exclude the identification by witness was made.  The trial court denied the motion.

The Arizona Supreme Court held that because the flier was not made or authorized by the police, it did not fall within the protections of the Due Process Clause.  They reasoned there was no state interference of the witness and Due Process protection only forbids the State from causing this type of tainted identification.

It appears the court believed that releasing the photo was not enough state action to violate Garcia’s Due Process rights. Perhaps, if the defense was able to identify the creator of the flier, the result may be different.  What if the person was part of a silent witness program or some other quasi-government program?  Moreover, the opinion plainly states the defense did not admit a copy of the flier into evidence.  Could the contents of the flier have supplied some evidence of state action?

In sum, the behavior that taints the identification needs a closer connection (at least in Arizona) to state action, in order to be rise to the level of a Due Process violation.  Moreover, while the Court permitted the witness to testify about his identification, the defense still has the right to cross-examine the witness as to suggestive circumstances of the identification.

If you have questions regarding a specific legal issue please contact The Koplow Law Firm.

Lawrence Koplow

]]>

Drug sniffing dogs – you see them at the airport, the bus station, and on television. They serve an important purpose for law enforcement and the public. That is, they smell drugs when humans cannot. Moreover, the dogs do it in a manner that is not invasive to the people being search. However, there are some rules, like the 4th Amendment to constitution, that restrict how these dogs can be used.

For example, law enforcement can’t just bust down your door without a warrant and take a dog through your house to smell everything. When it comes to your home, the Fourth Amendment to the Unites Constitution was created protect against such unreasonable entries. However, the courts are giving law enforcement more and more “leeway” on how they use man’s best friend to overcome the constitutional hurdles of the Fourth Amendment.

Look for example at a 2010 Arizona Court of Appeals case, State v. Guillen. In Guillen, one of questions asked was: if consent to search a home is valid, when the resident giving consent was unaware of a dog-sniff conducted on her property, without a warrant, before she arrived home. That is, law enforcement went on her property without a warrant, had the dog sniff the garage and the dog smelled something. Then they asked the homeowner to search the house. At the heart of the case is the fact she consented to search.

One could could argue this way: law enforcement violated her fourth amendment rights, used the information they got illegally to help make an arrest that merely appeared legal. After all, would the resident have consented if she had known that a potentially illegal search / entry on her property had just occurred?

The above theory was essentially adopted by the defendant’s attorney in front of the Arizona Court of Appeals. They posited that the initial dog sniff on the property without the owner’s knowledge was illegal police misconduct in the first place. Thus, the later consent was not valid, and the entire search of the home would be illegal.

In general, courts consider the term “Consent” to mean the voluntary, and un-coerced permission of a person which allows a government official to take a specified action without a warrant.

However, the court disagreed with this argument after looking at the chain of events. The Court stated that the relationship between the sniff and the consent was the determining factor. For the consent to be invalid as the defendant’s attorney suggested, the consent must have been caused as a result of police misconduct. The fact that the resident did not know about the dog sniff, and she was not forced to allow police in the home, and she was not forced to allow police in the home, means that the consent was not a result of the dog sniff, and was not invalid on that argument alone.

It appears the court did not address the actual constitutionality of the dog sniff in the driveway. Consequently, the door may be left open to argue the constitutionally of this type search in the future if the facts distinguishable.

If you have question about a specific legal issue please contact the Koplow Law Firm.

Lawrence Koplow