Florida Criminal Attorney Blog

After his friend's dog escaped through a fence, suffering a large gash on its chest, William Jones, Jr. thought the right thing to do was apply glue to the dog's wound. However, when the dog escaped through the same hole in the fence a second time, the gash worsened. This time, Jones is said to have nixed the glue and opted instead to perform an amateur surgery on the dog's wound.

Using a needle threaded with dental floss, Jones allegedly tried to stitch the dog's wound together after administering a muscle relaxant. To keep the dog from kicking and squirming, Jones allegedly applied a chloroform soaked rag to the dog's muzzle. The dog stopped breathing and died shortly thereafter.

Jones is presently facing two counts of felony animal abuse. Presumptively, he is being charged with one count for gluing the wound and a second count for trying to sew it up.

I wish I could explain some form of a brilliant legal strategy here, but Jones doesn't really have one. The only thing working for him, would be a lack of eye witness testimony. However, it is unclear whether or not Jones made any incriminating statements or gave a confession to detectives from the Broward Sheriff's Office.

Either way, lets face it - this guy is a complete moron. I am sure he will claim that he had good intentions and was trying to help the animal. But frankly, all he will do is reveal how intellectually challenged he is. Any argument by defense lawyers that he is mentally incompetent or insane likely lacks merit as well.

Jones' actions were not crazy, they were cruel.

While he may have tried to fix the dog's wounds, he did so without regard for the fact that he would likely kill or seriously maim the animal. There is little doubt that a Broward jury would sympathize with him or believe that he was acting altruistically.

If anything, the jury will sympathize with the dog and wonder why Jones didn't take the animal to the humane society or to a veterinarian - even if he did not have the money to pay for a vet's help. To pick up a needle and dental floss is just beyond the scope of anything a reasonable person would do.

Assuming he has no criminal history, Jones will likely be placed on probation and be forced to pay the dog's owner restitution for the value of the dog.

In an article published by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, it was reported that a 16 year old boy stabbed his 62 year old neighbor to death and then stole $34 from her purse. The teenager is being detained at the Broward County Juvenile Assessment Center in Fort Lauderdale.

According to detectives from the Broward Sheriff's Office, the boy has already confessed to the stabbing.

As a criminal defense lawyer, my first question concerns the defendant's mental competency. The outrageous nature of this crime suggests that the juvenile's perception of reality is completely skewed. While details of the offense have not yet been published, defense lawyers must wonder what drove the juvenile to go to such lengths to steal a mere $34.

Ultimately, the juvenile will need to be evaluated by experts to determine if he is mentally competent. If he is not competent, he will not be able to stand trial for this offense.

The next issue in a case like this concerns the confession. Regardless of whether the teenager admitted to the crime or not, the alleged confession must have been lawfully obtained if it is to be used in trial. In order to obtain a lawful confession from a person in custody, police are obligated to advise the detainee of his or her right to remain silent and right to legal counsel before questioning. Additionally, if the juvenile suffers from any mental competency issues, his understanding of any advisement by police may have been insufficient to pass muster.

If the police failed to completely and correctly advise the teenager of his rights, any "confession" he may have given while in custody may be thrown out by the court.

These protections come from the Constitution and ensure that a person accused of a crime understands that the law does not require him or her to act as a witness against themselves. The burden of proof is always on the accuser, not the accused! They also guarantee that a person understands that their right to legal counsel before answering any questions. This rule is important because it keeps police in check by preventing them from taking advantage of person who does not understand the legal process or the criminal justice system.

Before any legal strategy may be crafted in this case, defense lawyers will need to review any and all police reports, witness statements, and other evidence. They will also need to meet with their client and possibly have him evaluated for mental competence. Once this information is obtained, a more comprehensive legal strategy may be formulated.

According to a recent article by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, the Broward County Sheriff's Office plans to test guns that were found or seized by police, but which aren't necessarily evidence of a crime.

While many people are not aware of this, police departments across the country routinely take possession of firearms that are not used as evidence. Some guns are found discarded, others are seized during domestic violence or drug arrest, and sometimes guns are recovered during community "buy back" programs. Once recovered, a firearm is stored by the police for a period of time and then later destroyed - unless of course it is being preserved as evidence in a criminal prosecution.

By randomly testing its "non-evidentiary" guns, Broward crime scene technicians hope to discover clues that may help solve some open cases. By recovering a projectile from a gun test fired in their laboratory, crime scene technicians are able to compare the markings imprinted on the projectile by the gun's barrel to the markings on other bullets retrieved from crime scenes. When the imprints on the bullets seem to match, technicians presume that the bullets were fired from the same gun. In a sense, crime scene technicians compare the unique markings of a gun barrel to a person's fingerprints.

This type of forensic evidence is called "pattern evidence" and is very different from "analytical evidence" which concerns DNA analysis, blood toxicology, and the like.

While the concept of comparing barrel imprints on projectiles seems very compelling, the truth is that pattern evidence is unreliable. Unlike DNA or blood analysis, pattern evidence calls for interpretation by someone who visually inspects two samples and opines that they look similar enough to be considered matches.

This methodology becomes especially problematic because the two samples a technician may look at are rarely, if ever, identical. Unlike what is seen on TV, a bullet recovered from a crime scene looks nothing like the perfect specimen recovered in a laboratory. Bullets often fragment, chip, flatten, and partially disintegrate upon impact. This is especially problematic when dealing with hollow point ammunition (which mushrooms inside its target) or jacketed ammunition which separates on impact. Not to mention the fact that surviving portions almost always receive additional imprints, scratches, and dings from the targets they travel through and ultimately land in.

In 2005, the United States Congress ordered the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on forensic science to address problems like these. For those who have never heard of the National Academy of Sciences, they are kind of a big deal and have been advising the Federal government on scientific and technical matters since Congress created the Academy in 1863.

In its 350 page report to Congress, the National Academy of Sciences stated that "[W]ith the exception of nuclear DNA analysis, however, no forensic method has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual or source." See: Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, Page 7, The National Academy Press, 2009.

This is a huge problem!

While investigators should analyze each and every clue they recover from a crime scene, police have a tendency to overstate the value of their evidence when trying to close a case - especially when they try to build a case around a particular suspect. This problem is exacerbated when a shortcoming in evidence can be ignored by labeling the evidence "scientific" or "forensic."

Science plays a very important role in law enforcement and in our court system. However, the public, especially those who serve on juries, should always question what they are being told. This scrutiny should be applied to both prosecutors and defense lawyers alike. Each piece of evidence in a case, whether it is evidence that supports guilt or negates guilt, should only be given its proper weight, if any at all.

Ultimately, jurors should remember that the burden of proof rests on the prosecutors and the prosecutors alone. As the accuser, it is the prosecutor's job to prove each and every element of a crime to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. If a juror has reasonable doubt about the true scientific validity of a piece of evidence, then that evidence should be disregarded.

When it comes to scientific evidence, I for one put my faith in the National Academy of Sciences and you should too.

Roderick B. Woods recently appealed an order, in Palm Beach, denying a motion to suppress and an order adjudicating him guilty of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, possession of drugs including ecstasy, cocaine and marijuana. After careful review, the Fourth District Court of Appeals (4th DCA) ruled against Woods and affirmed the trial court's ruling on the motion to suppress and the order adjudicating him guilty.

While the testimony of the witnesses varied greatly, the trial court concluded that police came to Woods' building after an anonymous tip was received concerning a homicide. In the course of their investigation, police knocked on Woods' apartment door and asked the occupants to step outside so that they could ask them a few questions about the homicide.

Once outside, Woods asked if he could go back inside the apartment to put on a shirt from his bedroom. The officers agreed, but stated that they would have to come with him for officer safety. When the officers asked Woods if it was "ok" for them to follow him back to his room, Woods supposedly agreed - even though he knew he had a bag of marijuana and a bag of crack cocaine laying in plain sight.

On appeal, Woods argued that the contact with police became investigatory, thereby triggering his 4th Amendment rights, when the officers asked the occupants of the home to step outside for questioning. Ultimately, the 4th DCA ruled that this was not an investigatory stop and Woods' Fourth Amendment rights were therefore not violated.

When a good criminal defense lawyer analyzes a case like this, the distinction between a "consensual encounter" and an "investigatory stop" can make all the difference. During a consensual encounter, "a person may voluntarily comply with the police officer's request or choose to ignore them. Because a person is free to leave during a consensual encounter, Constitutional safeguards are not invoked." Popple v. State, 626 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1993).

However, during an investigatory stop, "a police officer may reasonably detain a citizen temporarily if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. In order not to violate a citizen's Fourth Amendment rights, an investigatory stop requires a well founded, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Mere suspicion is not enough to support a stop." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).

To determine whether the encounter between Woods and the police was consensual or investigatory, the appeals court considered the "totality of the circumstances" as was done by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980).

When evaluating the totality of the circumstances, the appeals court relied heavily on the fact that "[T]he officers never acted in a threatening manner, never drew their weapons, and never raised their voices or ordered the residents to do anything against their will."

Two police officers from the Fort Lauderdale Police Department were suspended Friday while an investigation continues into their relationship with accused Ponzi schemer Scott Rothstein. According to the Miami Herald, city officials confirmed that Sgt. Steve Greenlaw and Officer DeAnna Garcia-Lemieux, have been suspended with pay.

Even though an internal investigation is underway, there is no indication, so far, that any criminal laws have been violated. Moreover, it is unknown whether any of the officers have retained legal counsel.

Greenlaw and Garcia-Lemieux are being investigated for possibly violating departmental policy when they worked off-duty security details at Rothstein's personal residence, his law firm, and his Las Olas restaurant Bova Prime.

While departmental policy prohibits police officers from working as bodyguards, top city officials, including Fort Lauderdale's chief of police, considered the Rothstein security details to be distinct and gave approval for such work last spring.

The chief's entanglement with Rothstein makes his approval suspect since many believe he may have acted in violation of departmental policy in his own interactions with Rothstein. So far conclusions as to wrong doing on the part of these officers or the chief of police have not yet been made.

Between April and November 2, Rothstein allegedly paid over $300,000 to 28 high-ranking police officers, detectives, and undercover officers, including the department's spokesperson.

While many are quick to criticize these officers, I for one understand why they took the work. In a year when most police departments have cut back on overtime pay due to the budget crisis, it is no wonder why these officers turned to off-duty details to make extra money. While police work is very dangerous and unforgiving, it pays nothing. Officers routinely take outside security work to make ends meet. That is why you might see a highway trooper stationed outside a construction site or a city cop outside of a nightclub. Trust me, they aren't there because they like loud banging sounds.

What the public doesn't realize is that off-duty details are really second jobs. Granted that providing security in restaurants and law firms is hardly difficult work, it is still nonetheless a job at a time and place when the officer would rather be home with his family enjoying a day off like a normal person.

Moreover, the institution of off-duty details serves the public interest. By having the ability to hire off-duty police, the public is able to command the attention of professional law enforcement at religious events, sports activities, parties, and other events where specialized security needs exist.

At the end of the day however, each officer, especially the chief of police, has a personal duty to make sure their actions are compliant with the law and departmental policy. In a town rampant with corruption, the police department, of all places, must conduct itself in a manner that is above par at all times. This includes avoiding behavior that may call its integrity and commitment to professionalism into question.

Fort Lauderdale, Florida attorney, Scott Rothstein, is facing 30 years to life for his involvement in allegedly orchestrating one of the largest Ponzi schemes in South Florida history. On January 6, Rothstein told a federal judge in Broward County that he plans to plead guilty to his charges later in the month.

A little explanation about federal sentencing is in order here. When formulating a sentence, there are some basic elements that Rothstein's judge is certain to consider. For starters, the Court will consider the nature of the charges which Rothstein will plead guilty to. The degree and maximum penalties will definitely set the tone.

Second, the judge will consider the magnitude of the offense, both in terms of how long it transpired and the net effect to its victims. In this case, Rothstein's Ponzi scheme is said to have gone on for years and exceeded over $1.2 billion in stolen money. There is no doubt that the gargantuan nature of this theft will weigh heavily on the judge's mind.

Third, the judge is likely to consider Rothstein's character. While he has no prior criminal history, there is no doubt that Rothstein's ostentatious lifestyle, which was lived at his victims' expense, will certainly add to his time in prison. Additionally, Rothstein's behavior as he awaited his arrest - such as having a martini lunch at Capitol Grille - will surely speak volumes to his judge.

Fourth, the fact that Rothstein returned from Morocco to face his charges and his victims, will likely serve to mitigate his sentence, especially since he had the means and opportunity to evade justice. Additionally, the judge will also consider any information or assistance Rothstein has provided to law enforcement in regards to its investigation. While Rothstein's remorse is a textbook example of "too little, too late," the judge will certainly listen to what he has to say and will give him some form of credit for taking responsibility, even though such credit may be minuscule.

Fifth, there is no doubt that the sentencing judge will give heavy weight to the fact that Rothstein abused his position of trust as a lawyer. Not only does it speak volumes about Rothstein himself, but there are public policy concerns that must be addressed as well. Like doctors, lawyers owe the public a level of care and concern that is above par. Not only did Rothstein fail to provide his clients with the level of care and concern that they were due, but he used his position of trust to violate his clients and steal their money. This behavior is despicable and will certainly be remembered by the sentencing judge.

Given the magnitude of the alleged Ponzi scheme and the fact that Rothstein lived large and loud at his victims' expense, I expect him to get a minimum of 30 years in federal prison. To the extent that Rothstein receives credit for helping law enforcement and for returning to Fort Lauderdale to face justice, Rothstein may be spared from a life sentence.

At the end of the day, I expect that Rothstein's end will only mark the beginning of this saga. There is no doubt that additional prosecutions and disbarments are well in the works.

Pompano Beach, Florida has recently become a hot spot for thieves interested in a very specific type of car... the Ford Mustang Cobra. According to the Miami Herald, four Cobras were stolen near U.S. 1 south of Atlantic Boulevard. Of these four, three were stolen from the Pompano Isles neighborhood. Given the location of these thefts, any potential prosecution would be brought by the Broward County State Attorney's Office, which is located in Fort Lauderdale.

The Broward Sheriff's Office suspects that three or four people may be involved. However, only one possible suspect has been caught on video surveillance. Unfortunately, this video was taken at a bank in Hialeah when the suspect tried using a check card that was left inside one of the stolen Cobras by its owner.

This fact is interesting because it still does not indicate who has been stealing the cars. While most people are not aware of this, there are different types of criminal groups in South Florida who focus on different types of criminal activity. Some steal cars, some grow pot, others steal credit cards, driver's licenses, and check books.

It is not uncommon for car thieves to sell stolen credit cards to credit card groups within hours of a new auto theft. Most car thieves are only interested in the car and view the found credit cards as extra booty. Knowing that most people will report a stolen credit card right away, it is not surprising to learn that the card taken from the stolen Cobra was used within two and half hours of the auto theft. It would not be surprising to later learn that the card in question had exchanged hands from the auto thief to a credit card thief in such a short time. Offenders of this sort are very cunning and take what they do seriously - even though it is crime.

While obtaining this man's image on video is a priceless clue, it still does not prove that he participated in stealing the car in question. All it proves is that he tried to make a transaction with a credit card that was not his.

As a former prosecutor, I can tell you that this person is a perfect target for "flipping." When a prosecutor "flips" a witness, a sweetheart plea deal is made to the target in exchange for actionable intelligence on criminal enterprises or in exchange for truthful testimony in another prosecution.

While the man captured on video may not have participated in stealing the car in question, he certainly knows someone who did. This makes him an invaluable resource to law enforcement, who wish to solve this string of crimes and protect the community from further thefts.

While I expect these thieves to be ratted on by someone who knows them or works with them, I would not be surprised if they were caught red-handed. One thing that comes with fancy cars are fancy GPS systems and LoJack anti-theft systems. Eventually these thieves will make a mistake and steal the wrong car.

Unless of course these thieves are so sophisticated that they know how to bypass such electronic systems. If that is the case, they still may fall prey to a watchful owner or a home surveillance camera.

Ultimately, the details of how they are caught will govern the extent of any available defense. Since no one has even been arrested yet, it is hard to predict how the dust may ultimately settle. Until then, keep your eyes on your Cobras!