Florida Criminal Attorney Blog

Fort Lauderdale, Florida teenager, Rumaldo Frometa, was recently arrested for the alleged sexual assault on a 7 year old boy at Sunview Park near Davie Boulevard. Because this park is located in Broward County, Florida, Frometa will be facing prosecution in the 17th Judicial Circuit, which sits in Fort Lauderdale.

According to the MiamiHerald.com, Frometa was identified after police received tips from local children and homeless people. Frometa is said to have confessed to the crimes and was also identified by the alleged victim and his sister in a photo line-up.

Unsurprisingly, Frometa has a prior arrest for allegedly committing a sexual assault on a different minor. Additionally, it is no surprise to learn that Frometa was declared mentally incompetent to stand trial in that prior case.

The manner in which Frometa allegedly committed the assault in Sunview Park reveals that he had no regard for risk. This disregard for risk tells us that his brain fails to correctly perceive reality or that he has such an uncontrollable impulse that he acts in spite of the inherent risks of being caught. Given the fact that he has already been declared mentally incompetent in a case similar to the instant one, it appears as though Frometa may be both psychotic and uncontrollably impulsive.

Regardless, Frometa's mental issues will likely preclude him from standing trial. If anything, his new case only serves to reaffirm the psychologists' finding of mental incompetence made after his first arrest.

As was discussed in our previous entry concerning this case, identification of the alleged perpetrator is a central issue in any criminal case, especially in sex offenses involving minors. However, it appears as though there were witnesses other than the children. Moreover, Frometa's confession, if lawfully obtained by police, will likely serve to cinch any question about his identity as the true offender.

However, the most interesting part of this case turns out to be Frometa himself. Candidly, many people, myself included, expected the perpetrator to be some perverted adult male. As it turns out, Frometa is a 17 year old teenager and not the 20 or 30-something adult that the victims had originally described to police. This disparity is an excellent example of how child witnesses often times produce unreliable identification. Simply put, immature brains do not record, recollect, and verbalize memories in a reliable fashion.

In the absence of the alleged confession or supposed eye witnesses testimony by neighborhood kids and homeless people, Frometa's identification as the perpetrator may have been suspect. I for one would like to hear more about how the police obtained his confession - especially since we know Frometa is only 17 and mentally incompetent. Given his age and incompetence, it is unlikely he understood any reading of his Miranda rights, if such reading was even done by police prior to questioning. If Frometa was unable to understand his Miranda rights, then the confession was unlawfully obtained and should be thrown out.

Moreover, what did the local kids and homeless people really see? Was he simply seen in the park at the time of the alleged assault or was he actually seen kidnapping the children at gun point? Also, to what extent did community knowledge of his prior case serve to point police in his direction?

A good criminal defense lawyer never takes anything for granted. If anything, this case presents a textbook example of how collective belief in the accused's guilt should be thoroughly investigated and challenged.

However, at the end of the day, defense lawyers will likely rely on Frometa's mental incompetence to keep him out of the adult system and the possibility of prison.

Regardless of Frometa's fate, we hope that the victims and their families have a speedy recovery and get past this horrible experience as quickly as possible.

Fort Lauderdale, Florida - Detectives from the Broward Sheriff's Office are searching for a man who allegedly committed a sexual battery on a 7 year old boy. According to WSVN-TV Channel 7, the boy and his sister were crossing through Sunview Park, which is located near Davie Boulevard, when a man in his 20's or 30's approached the children at gun point. While pointing the gun, the man allegedly directed the boy into a port-o-potty where he raped him as the boy's sister waited outside.

According to police, a manhunt was initiated after the childrens' parents called police.

The rapist is described as a white or light browned skinned man, tall and slim, in his 20's or 30's, with a clean shaven face. While police went door to door seeking help, the man is still at large.

The manner in which this man commited these crimes tells law enforcement that they are dealing with a person who is either psychotic, uncontrollably impulsive, or both. The fact that he used a gun against children, in broad day light, coupled with the fact that he raped the boy while leaving the girl outside the port-o-potty unsupervised, shows that the man acted without regard for risk.

Such offenders present pros and cons to law enforcement. On the one hand, the man will undoubtedly be caught because he is utterly reckless. On the other hand, he will likely be caught by reoffending.

Ultimately, prosecutors may charge him with two counts of armed kidnapping and one count of armed sexual battery. The fact that a gun was used in the commission of these felonies means he will be subjected to 10-20-LIFE penalties.

However, even if an arrest is made, there is still no guarantee that the person arrested will be convicted. Ultimately, prosecutors must prove that a crime was committed and that the person charged is the person, and none other, who committed the crime.

Since the prosecution's entire case hinges upon the testimony of two 7 year olds, identification of the offender may prove to be very difficult at trial. Unlike adults, young children do not make reliable witnesses because they do not record, recollect, and verbalize memories in a sophisticated manner. Child testimony is even more suspect in situations where the child is recalling memories made while under the influence of fright, panic, pain, or victimization.

There is no doubt that a child is able to remember when a person, especially a stranger, touches them in a way that hurts or feels "yucky" or "bad." However, a child's ability to identify a specific stranger from other similar looking strangers in a photo line-up may prove to be very difficult, if not sometimes impossible. To make matters worse, children are especially susceptible to suggestive identification by law enforcement who are eager to arrest the person they think committed the crime.

These circumstances may worsen for prosecutors if the children ultimately identify different, but similar looking, offenders.

Of course, if this man left behind any DNA evidence or if his fingerprints are recovered from the port-o-potty, identification may turn out to be very easy.

Ultimately, this offender will likely do himself in by committing the same crime in the same place to other children. When a criminal acts impulsively or is psychotic, it is just a matter of time before he or she is caught.

Hopefully these children and their families will one day recover and get past this horific experience.

To search for registered sex offenders in Florida, please click here.

Broward County, Florida defendant, Anthony Green, recently lost his appeal of a 2008 conviction for violating his probation. In 1999, Green was sentenced to 15 years of probation following a no-contest plea to robbery with a firearm.

On June 2, 2008, Green was allegedly driving his silver Saturn when he ran a red light at 1:30 in the morning. After pulling over, Green fled on foot upon being approached by police officers. Ultimately, Green was arrested after he dumped cocaine in some bushes. During the arrest, Green allegedly fought with police, hitting one in the head.

Green argued two points on appeal. First, he claimed that prosecutors failed to prove that he had tampered with evidence or that he possessed narcotics equipment. Second, Green claimed that the Court's findings that he had battered a police officer, possessed cocaine, and resisted an officer with violence, were insufficient to sustain a willful, substantial, and material violation of probation, warranting revocation of probation and imposition of a maximum sentence.

In the end, the Fourth District Court of Appeals agreed with Green as to his first point, but disagreed as to the second. The end result was a remand to the trial court for the entry of an order revoking probation. This made no difference for Green who still must serve his 15 year sentence, less credit for time already served.

The most interesting part of this case, however, concerns its very clear discussion about the legal standard for revoking probation. To that end, the appeals court relied on Jenkins v. State, 963 So. 2d 311, 313 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) and Steiner v. State, 604 So. 2d 1265, 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). In order for a revocation of probation to be triggered, he "greater weight of the evidence" must prove that any violation was "willful" and "substantial." The court also explained that this determination is a question of fact that will not be reversed on appeal, unless there is no evidence to support such conclusions. Jenkins, 963 So. 2d at 313 (quoting Davis v. State, 796 So. 2d 1222, 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

Tamarac, Florida resident, Chad Weiner, was arrested Wednesday by detectives from the Broward Sheriff's Office.

The crime allegedly took place on November 19, 2009 in the unnamed victim's apartment. According to a FoxNews report, the victim had gotten up from bed when she was attacked by a man who had made entry into her residence. The victim was allegedly tied up and then sexually battered.

For his alleged actions, Weiner has been charged with Sexual Battery, Burglary, and Kidnapping. The 91 year old victim was taken to Florida Medical Center for treatment.

This case carries very serious consequences and presents a number of challenges for Weiner's defense team. The first issue will concern whether or not he can be positively identified as the perpetrator. As despicable as a rape on a helpless elderly person can be, there may be serious problems with her ability to positively identify her attacker, especially since she is likely the only witness. When considering the likelihood that a criminal defendant has been misidentified, the courts will consider the following five elements: 1) the opportunity of the witness to view the offender at the time of the crime; 2) the witness's degree of attention; 3) the accuracy of the witness's prior description of the offender; 4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation between the witness and the accused; and 5) the length of time between the time of the crime and the confrontation between the witness and the accused. See Henry v. State, 519 So.2d 1988 (Fla. 4 DCA), citing Neil v. Biggers, 93 S. Ct 375 at 382 (1972).

However, in Weiner's case, the police claim that they have DNA evidence which ties him to the crimes.

While DNA is a phenomenal source of evidence that both can incriminate and exonerate, not all DNA samples are of the same quality. Just because DNA was collected and just because a presumptive test says it may match Weiner, does not mean it really does. Conclusive testing of the available sample is required before any final conclusions can be drawn. Conclusive testing will require a quality sample that was properly collected, properly preserved, and properly tested. Any lapse in the collection, storage, or testing of the sample can cause inaccurate results. The collection, storage, and testing process is very intricate and requires attention to detail.

At the end of the day, Weiner's defense team will need to depose the victim and determine whether or not she is capable of making a reliable, positive identification. Moreover, a deeper look into the true merit of any alleged DNA evidence will need to be conducted and any matching test results will need to be verified.

If the victim can reliably identify Weiner or if there is reliable DNA evidence, Weiner's may find himself in a very precarious situation. Putting aside the serious nature of his charges, Florida law also allows judges to enhance prison sanctions when the victim is elderly or if the victim sustains any injury. The greater the injury, the more a sentence may be enhanced.

At the end of the day, we hope that the victim is able to recover and find peace for what she has been through, whether it is Weiner or another person who is truly responsible.

Broward County, Florida defendant, Kenneth Ruiz, was charged with second degree attempted murder of a law enforcement officer, resisting with violence, and trespass in a structure or conveyance. The charges stemmed from an incident that was alleged to have taken place at Giorgio's nightclub, where Ruiz celebrated his birthday with friends.

At the end of the night, Ruiz and his friends were ordered to leave the club, because it was closing, by a police officer who was working an off-duty detail at the club. After some back and forth, Ruiz and his friends left the club, but remained in the parking lot "partaking in disruptive behavior."

When the off-duty police officer went to arrest Ruiz, a fight ensued.

Ultimately however, Ruiz was acquitted of all charges, except for the trespass. At trial, his defense lawyer moved for a judgment of acquittal, stating that no reasonable jury could have found Ruiz guilty of trespass because the parking lot was "open-air" and not enclosed by any kind of structure.

Relying on the Florida Supreme Court's ruling in Hamilton v. State, 660 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 1995), the Fourth District Court of Appeals ruled that Ruiz's conviction must be reversed because a trespass conviction cannot be sustained in the absence of some form of an enclosure that would make the parking lot come under the "curtilage" of the night club.

Since there was no factual question about the lack of an enclosure, the appeals court reversed Ruiz's conviction.

Broward County, Florida, has fallen victim to yet another criminal mastermind. No, I'm not talking about another Ponzi scheme or a guy who was skimming a fraction of a penny from county payroll, as made famous in the movie Office Space and by Richard Pryor's character in Superman.

No, this robbery genius chooses locations that only have surveillance cameras. Since November 26, 2009, the same person is alleged to have robbed drug stores, video stores, and convenience stores. In one night, he is alleged to have hit multiple places within minutes of each other. No mask, no scarf, no effort to conceal his identity whatsoever.

Either this guy is an all out gutsy, I-don't-care-about-the-consequences-cuz-I'm-a-straight-up-G type or he has never heard of surveillance cameras.

In fact, detectives from Broward Sheriff's Office and the Fort Lauderdale Police Department already have a good idea about what he looks like. They know he is about 165 lbs, is in his early 20's and has tremendous area code pride - in at least one robbery he wore a shirt that said "954" on it.

To make matters worse for himself, this dope has been robbing these stores at gun point. So far cops think he is responsible for at least five armed robberies.

I don't mean to sound crass, but there is just no excuse for such stupidity. If for no other reason, the risk/reward ratio just isn't there.

Since he committed his robberies with the use of a gun, that means he is subject to 10-20-LIFE penalties. Multiplying those penalties by five robberies, this guys is looking at major time. Assuming he doesn't kill or injure anyone in his next robbery, he is presently facing a minimum mandatory sentence of ten years per count.

While his criminal history is unknown, it is doubtful that he lived for 20-something years without ever getting in trouble and then one day decided to start robbing stores at gun point. The leap from law abiding citizen to violent criminal is just too great. Therefore, it is presumed that his criminal history, if any, will serve to aggravate his circumstances and increase any penalties he may be facing.

As with other 10-20-LIFERS mentioned on this blog, this guy's best defense is probably just to stop and fade away. Having been caught on video, there is likely little room for an effective defense. Even if he can fend off prosecution on one or two cases, it is extremely unlikely that he will be able to win five for five. Keeping in mind that prosecutors only need one conviction to send him away for a very long time, this guy is gambling with his life, and the lives of others, in a way that is just plain stupid.

Pompano Beach, Florida resident, Deangelo Veus, was arrested for the 18th time on Saturday after trying to drown his mother's dogs. Accoridng to South Florida's CBS4.com, Veus forced his mother's terrier into a cage after choking it. He then forced his mother's pregnant miniature pincher into another cage.

After tying a line between the two cages and a cinder block, Veus pushed the two cages and cinder block into a lake. While the terrier was able to escape from its cage and swim to safety, the miniature pincher unfortunately drowned on scene.

Broward County Animal Control officers later retrieved the cages, the line, and the cinder block from the lake.

While animal cruelty can be filed as either a misdemeanor or a felony, there is no doubt that a felony will be filed for the death of the pregnant pincher. In all likelihood, prosecutors will file a second felony charge for the near dorwing of the terrier as well.

From a defense perspective, the two main issues in the case concern eye witness testimony and the existence of any admissible confessions. In the absence of eye witnesses or incriminating statements that are admissible in court, prosecutors may have a hard time obtaining a conviction - even though the alleged conduct is so offensive.

However, in the event that there is a triable case, there is no doubt that Veus will be serverly disadvantaged by the distaste with which the public views animal cruelty cases. While many animal cruelty cases involve mentally ill or elderly defendants who do not have the wherewithal to care for their pets, this case is different because it involves an act of premeditated cruelty. Potential jurors will find the allegations in this case offensive and are likely to lean in favor of the prosecution, even before hearing evidence.

To make matters worse for himself, Veus may also face a mandatory prison sentence as a consequence of his prior criminal history which is said to involve robbery and carrying a concealed firearm.

Ultimately Veus's defense lawyers will have to weigh the quality and availability of any eye witnesses testimony, any admissible confessions or statements by Veus (if made), and the weight of his prior criminal history when deciding whether or not to proceed to trial.

Deerfield Beach, Florida resident, Jose Alfaro, is being held without bond as he awaits resolution of his first degree murder charge. Alfaro is accused of shooting his friend, Stephen Febonio, 45, in the back of the head and then stuffing his body in a freezer.

Febonio's parents live just west of Boytnton Beach, Florida and saw him last on August 24, 2007. Febonio was picked up by Alfaro at his parents' home but was never seen again.

Febonio and Alfaro were allegedly partners in a marijuana grow house operation. However, it is alleged that that the two had a falling out over a $10,000 debt that Alfaro supposedly owed Febonio.

Accoridng to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Febonio threatended to report the grow house to law enforcement if Alfaro didn't pay up. In response, Alfaro is accused of then murdering Febonio.

After learning that deputies from the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office found Febonio's body in the freezer, Alfaro allegedly fled to Newburgh, N.Y. where he began to reside with his mother.

Accoridng to Detective Sean Oliver of the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, Alfaro admitted that he killed Alfaro to several people.

Whether or not the prosecution in this case has enough evidence to obtain a conviction at trial is unknown. However, if admissible, it is likely that Alfaro's confession to numerous people about the murder will serve to guarantee a conviction for the prosecution.

This is not an uncommon occurrence in criminal law. In many cases it is the defendant's admissions that make the entire case for the prosecution. Had Alfaro kept his mouth shut, it may have been possible for him to effectively challenge the prosecution's allegations. This of course assumes there is no other insurmountable evidence pending against Alfaro.

Sitting in West Palm Beach, Florida, the 4th District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Tilakia Beamon for engaging in an organized scheme to defraud. In its written opinion, the appellate court adrressed whether Beamon's month long use of a stolen credit card consituted "organized fraud" within the meaning of Florida Statute 817.034(4)(a).

At trial, the prosecution accused Beamon of using a stolen credit card in 28 separate transactions. While Beamon admitted to using the card, she claimed that she did so with permission of its owner. This claim was rebuffed by the owner who testified that Beamon never had such authority. In the end, the jury believed the owner and found Beamon guilty.

The important lesson to learn from this case is how the law endows the prosecution with the ability to turn mole hills into mountains. Since the total monetary value of the 28 fraudulent transactions was only about $1,500, it is likely that each individual transaction, or at least most of them, amounted to nothing more than multiple acts of Petit Theft. This fact is important because Petit Theft is only a misdemeanor. That means Beamon would be shielded from the possibility of prison time and would likely get probation or a short sentence in county jail.

However, by framing the 28 individual acts of petit theft as an ongoing scheme to defraud, the State was able to levy a 3rd Degree Felony against Beamon which exposed her to the possibility of up to 5 years in prison.

While the prosecutors made the case more difficult to prove - because they would have to convince the jury of Beamon's guilt in every single alleged act of petit theft - the gamble paid off in the end.

The best defense in a case like this would have been to attack just one or two of the alleged acts and force a directed verdict. Remember, the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution and that burden extends to each and every allegation in the indictment. If the State failed to admit evidence establishing the basic legal elements of even one of the 28 alleged transactions, then the entire case would have fallen. Whether this was possible is unknown.

Law enforcement officials from Broward County, Florida, Boynton Beach, Florida, and Margate, Florida held a press conference Tuesday to draw the public's attention to the serial robber who has been hitting check cashing stores in Broward and Palm Beach counties.

According to police, the bandit has been caught on surveillance cameras numerous times. He has even robbed check cashing stores that posted his photograph outside the store.

Can you believe the brazeness of this guy? What a moron!

I'm no robber, but I would only guess that part of his plan includes staying out of prison. Wouldn't it make sense then to rob stores where you won't be recognized?

But hey, what do I know? He has committed almost 20 robberies since December 2007 and is still at large. I can only assume he is a fast runner.

However, there is little doubt that his crime spree will last much longer. Law enforcement has its radar turned on high and is paying attention for once. There is likely a multi-jurisdictional dragnet that is just itching to roll out and make an arrest.

Ultimately, this guy will face a rather lengthy prosecution that ties in all of the alleged robberies. The prosecutor's job is easy when the whole thing is caught on tape. To make matters worse, he will qualify for enhanced penalties under Florida's 10-20-LIFE gun laws.

Good defense lawyers can challenge any case. They know how to look for conflicts in the evidence and any lack of evidence. Great defense lawyers can do this when a client is facing one major case, two major cases, maybe even three. However, it is extremely unlikely that this crook's lawyer will win 20 for 20. To get what they want, prosecutors will only need one win.

At this point in time this guy's best defense is simply to stop. All he can hope for now is not getting caught. Otherwise, he is going to end up facing a multi-count, mult-jurisidictional prosecution that is going to end up with him serving a rather hefty prison sentence.

Hopefully, the right robber will be caught and nobody will get hurt in the process.

Fort Lauderdale, Florida attorney Scott Rothstein was arrested Tuesday on charges of racketeering, conspiracy to commit money laundering, conspiracy to commit fraud, and two counts of fraud for his role in allegedly orchestrating a $1.2 Billion Ponzi scheme. Acting U.S. Attorney Jeffrey H. Sloman said, "Attorneys, like elected officials, hold a special position in society and owe a duty to deal honestly with their clients and their clients's best interests."

Rothstein is alleged to have spent large sums of the Ponzi scheme's illegal proceeds on everything from political contributions, to luxury sports cars, mansions, new business ventures, and charitable donations.

It is also alleged that Rothstein and his co-conspirators compelled employees at his law firm to give political contributions which would later be reimbursed by the firm in the form of bonuses. This scheme is particularly troublesome, if true, because it would show a clear intent to sidestep campaign finance laws. Whether some politicians were aware of the scheme is still unknown.

Regardless, there is no doubt that the fall-out from this Fort Lauderdale-made-for-tv-melodrama is going to be widespread.

It is doubtful that Rothstein acted alone or acted only with small-time, no name cohorts. In an effort to save his own skin, Rothstein is expected to have already "spilled the beans" on more than a handful of people, including those in high power positions. While yet to be confirmed, many speculate that some local bank executives and power brokers were in on the take as well.

For those who think Rothstein's arrest marks the end of a bizarre and seemingly inexplicable skyrocket to success for a lawfirm of but 70 lawyers, many believe it is only the beginning. Which politicians will be unseated for violating campaign finance laws? Who among Fort Lauderdale's elite will fall from grace? What about the yet unresolved homicide prosecution surrounding the murder of Rothstein's associate Melissa Britt Lewis?

Here's a prediction: Rothstein's partners will lose their licenses to practice law as well. Everyone in town is still wondering how Rothstein's equity and name partner allowed him to control the firm's finances without any oversight. In the world-wide history of business partners, who ever heard of such a thing? Especially in a business so strictly regulated and supervised as the practice of law - just one sidestep and an attorney can be at risk of losing his or her license forever.

Hopefully the Florida Bar will take this case as an opportunity to evaluate the ethical implications of partnerships amongst lawyers and their ramifications to clients, the public, and overall confidance in what is supposed to be an honorable profession.

In any event, like you, I sit with bitten nails and a sour stomach as I await the next automatic update from Google news!