Defense Attorney: “I am moving to suppress the officer’s testimony.” Prosecution: “Why? We disclosed the evidence as soon as we got it.” -Flashback 12 hours- It is the night before trial and your email shows a new message. It is from the attorney you will be in trial with – tomorrow morning. He writes, “We just realized that there is some evidence we intend use tomorrow that you are unaware of.” It turns out the officer who arrested your client
This month the Arizona Court of Appeals rejected the argument that a judge does not have the discretion to hold a pretrial hearing on the reliability of scientific evidence. Since January 1, 2012 when Arizona adopted the Federal Daubert standard for safeguarding against junk science, several prosecutorial agencies have tried to persuade trial courts that things were “business as usual” despite the new rules of evidence. However, the February 5, 2013 ruling from Division One of the Arizona Court of
Daubert is the name of an United States Supreme Court case regarding the admissibility of scientific evidence: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. While the case was decided in 1993, it’s holdings are new to Arizona. Despite some arguments to the contrary by a few luddites, Arizona adopted it on January 1, 2012. Arizona’s change to a Daubert standard for challenging scientific evidence may be the most significant event our court have ever encountered. Currently, there are 31 other states that have adopted
The Arizona Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Geeslin was a rare event. In most circumstances, when a court makes a mistake, a formal objection to the court’s ruling must be found in the record. Put another way: if you fail to object to a court’s decision, you waive your right to appeal the ruling. However, as shown in Geeslin, there are some exceptions. In Geeslin, the defendant was arrested for putting shoplifted goods in a stolen vehicle and was
Asset forfeiture occurs when the government claims someone has profited from criminal activity. The government will then attempt to seize the proceeds of that criminal conduct. However, law enforcement often seizes money and property well beyond what the law allows. Common scenarios include a person who was not involved in a crime yet has their property taken; or when there has been a minor crime, but there is substantial overreaching by the government in what they take from the person.
According to the United States Department of Justice “Telemarketing Fraud” is: any scheme to defraud in which the persons carrying out the scheme use[s] the telephone as their primary means of communicating with prospective victims and trying to persuade them to send money to the scheme. Arizona has a unique history with the telemarketing industry. Many of the “pioneers” of mass telemarketing started in Arizona and it was a tremendously lucrative business. However, once many of the people involved in
Burglary is defined as entering onto the property of another with the intent to commit any theft or any felony thereon. In Arizona, there are three separate degrees of burglary. As defined in A.R.S. 13-1506, a person commits a third degree burglary by “entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a nonresidential structure or in a fenced commercial or residential yard with the intent to commit any theft or any felony therein.” Third degree is a class 4 felony in
Arizona criminal convictions can result in many different penalties. Some convictions require mandatory prison. Some convictions may result in merely a term of probation. While other convictions can result in both a term of probation and a term of jail. Above is a partial copy of the Arizona Supreme Court’s Sentencing chart that shows the general sentencing ranges for a criminal conviction in Arizona. In order to utilize the chart, you must understand a few basic principals. First, you must know
The crime of Fraudulent Schemes is codified in A.R.S. Section 13-2310. This crime requires proof that a person: Pursuant to a scheme or artifice to defraud; Knowingly obtains; Any benefit by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises or material omissions A person convicted of Fraudulent Schemes is guilty of a class 2 felony. Furthermore, reliance on the part of any person is not a necessary element of the offense.
It is undisputed that Gerry Spence is one of, if not the, best trial attorneys on planet earth. I don’t care what he is talking about, I am listening. Mr. Spence represented a man named Brandon Mayfield. Mayfield, an American Lawyer, was accused of being connected with the deadly train bombing in Madrid, Spain. As it turns out, he was wrongly accused. As a matter of record, the government ended up paying Mr. Mayfield $2 million dollars in a civil
© 2023 All rights reserved for Koplow Law Firm.