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
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.
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.
© 2023 All rights reserved for Koplow Law Firm.