Florida Criminal Attorney Blog

Mary Elizabeth Stapleton, 44, was arrested on Monday for allegedly robbing two BankAtlantic branches in Deerfield Beach, Florida and another bank in Lighthouse Point, Florida. She is now facing three counts of strong arm robbery. Since strong arm robbery is a second degree felony, Stapleton is facing a total of 45 years in prison.

This case presents yet another instance of the "criminally stupid." In the modern world of surveillance cameras, one has to wonder why someone would choose to rob a bank? Short of the airport, there is probably no other place on Earth that is more heavily guarded or equipped with surveillance cameras than a bank.

According to the Sun-Sentinel, Stapleton was caught on camera in at least two robberies. Prior to her third robbery, managers at BankAtlantic circulated an image of Stapleton obtained from surveillance video during one of her other robberies.

When one Stapleton entered a BankAtlantic on Monday, one of the tellers recognized her from the picture and triggered a silent alarm. After the robbery, tellers observed Stapleton as she discarded a threatening letter used in the robbery and drive off in her Mitsubishi Mirage. The tellers then alerted police to the vehicle make, model, color, and license plate. Stapleton was later pulled over and arrested by a Broward Sheriff's deputy.

When a criminal defense lawyer evaluates a case, one of the main things to consider is whether or not the State can identify the accused as the true offender. Being caught on video doesn't help anyone but the prosecutors. The next thing to consider is whether or not the prosecutors have enough evidence to prove each and every allegation. Again, being caught on video doesn't help anyone but the prosecutors.

Ultimately, Stapleton can only pray for two things. First, that the videos are of such poor quality that they have no evidentiary value whatsoever. Second, in the event that videos are of no value, the witnesses cannot identify her as the culprit. The likelihood that both of these facts coexist in her case is miniscule.

Therefore, Stapleton's case will likely come down to a savvy plea negotiation with prosecutors or a miracle at trial. Either way, Stapleton's foreseeable future is likely walled by concrete and metal bars.

Travis Lattimore, 21, and Sharpkina Woods, 35, were last seen alive at a barbecue in Broward County on Saturday night. However, by Sunday, they were both found shot to death in an SUV parked behind an abandoned home just outside Fort Pierce, Florida. Like many double homicides, this case has its own set of bizarre facts.

First, an autopsy revealed that Woods was four months pregnant at the time of her death. According to the St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office, an additional charge of homicide will not be brought for the death of the unborn fetus. This decision is based on the fact that the fetus was under 26 weeks old at the time it was killed. This is interesting because there is a lot of legal debate about when and under what circumstances a murder charge may be brought for causing the intentional death of an unborn fetus.

In a second twist, Lattimore, the other murder victim, was wanted in connection with a murder that occurred last week in Miami-Dade County. While the details of his connection to that murder are not known at this time, it is possible that he was killed as a retribution. Or, in the alternative, it would not be unheard of for him to be killed by a co-conspirator afraid that he might talk to police.

All of this is speculation, but creates a number of interesting investigatory leads for police and defense lawyers alike. However, before any concrete conclusions may be drawn as to motive and who was responsible, the police will have to conduct a rather lengthy investigation into the victim's backgrounds as well as evaluate any worthwhile forensic evidence uncovered at the scene of the shooting.

According to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, "VIP Barbershop," located in Oakland Park, Florida, sold more than just haircuts to its patrons. Barbers David Fonseca, 25, and Norman Irizarry, 25, were both arrested on January 22 after a sting operation conducted by the Broward Sheriff's Office.

BSO deputies claim they saw Fonseca sell marijuana to an undercover buyer that they sent in. In the police report, deputies claim that Fonseca reached into a drawer and pulled out a bag of marijuana which he then handed to the undercover buyer.

After raiding the barber shop, deputies allegedly seized 17 bags of marijuana, a joint, and three glass smoking pipes.

Because Fonseca allegedly sold the marijuana, he was arrested for possession with intent to distribute. This is a more serious offense than simple possession because the law differentiates between those who use marijuana and those who sell it.

To make matters worse, the barber shop is allegedly located within 1000 feet of a school. This means that Fonseca may be facing a minimum mandatory sentence for selling drugs near a school.

Defending someone in these situations can be complicated. For starters, the defense team will need to verify all claims made by the police. For example, were the officers really in a position to see all the things they claim they saw? In a similar case, my law office defended an individual accused of selling crack cocaine from the front door of his apartment in Hollywood. While the police claimed to have seen the hand to hand transaction from the street, this was proven to be false when I went to the scene of the alleged sale and took a photograph of a concrete wall that obstructs all view of the client's front door. In that case, I was able to prove that it was physically impossible to see the things that the officers claim they saw.

If the defense team can prove that the officers in Fonseca's case were not in a position to make their observations, or if they can highlight any inconsistencies in their stories, the case may come down to the sole testimony of the undercover buyer.

This is a very good thing.

Unless they are plain-clothes cops, most "undercover buyers" are really criminal defendants who entered into a deal with the prosecutor's office to avoid doing prison time on their own cases by acting as a snitch. The credibility of such snitches is notoriously poor because they are doing whatever it takes to avoid prison in their own cases.

Moreover, it is likely that the deputies failed to video record their observations. With the advent of cameras that can read license plates from outer space, it is mind-boggling why the police do not invest the time and effort to create question-proof evidence. Instead, the police expect us to rely strictly on their honesty simply because they wear a badge. Frankly, given the widespread police corruption that is endemic to Broward County, such expectations are unrealistic.

Ultimately, if the police lack credibility or their claims don't add up, the entire case may rest on the testimony of the snitch. Depending on what other evidence exists in the case, if any, the defense team may be able to use this weakness to negotiate probation or a waiver of the minimum mandatory sentence. If not, challenging the snitch's credibility may not be much of a challenge should the case go to trial.

Andrew Kotcherha, 46, was arrested last week for allegedly robbing two banks in Pompano Beach, Florida and one bank in Coconut Creek, Florida. According to the Sun-Sentinel, Kotcherha was released from prison in December after serving time for drug and theft charges. Kotcherha supposedly has a rather extensive criminal history, which includes a five year prison sentence for robbing a bank in 1992.

Even though bank robberies can be prosecuted in either State or Federal court, they are usually prosecuted in Federal court by the U.S. Attorney's Office after an investigation conducted by the FBI. This is important because prosecution in Federal court can be a lot more serious than in State court. Federal court is much more formal and the likelihood of being sent to prison is sometimes greater.

Second, insofar as a defense is concerned, Kotcherha seems to be out of luck because he failed to take any measures to conceal his identity. With the exception of his eyes, which were concealed by sunglasses, Kotcherha's face and body were supposedly recorded by bank security cameras. These videos may make winning at trial impossible.

Third, Kotcherha's criminal history will likely hurt him more than the bank videos. Not only does he allegedly have a lengthy rap sheet, but it appears as though he has a history not only for theft, but for bank robbery as well! This is going to hurt Kotcherha because judges give a lot of weight to criminal history at the time of sentencing. Criminal history is important because it gives a judge insight into the offender's character.

In Kotcherha's case, the sentencing judge will likely be most influenced by four main aggravators. First, is the fact that Kotcherha reoffended only a month or two after being released from prison. Second, is the fact that Kotcherha reoffended by committing a crime that involves theft - which is the very charge he was in prison for. Third, is the fact that Kotcherha already served a 5 year sentence for the same exact offense - bank robbery. Fourth, is the fact that Kotcherha went on a crime spree by allegedly robbing, not one, not two, but THREE banks.

When a sentencing judge reviews Kotcherha's case and criminal history, it is unlikley that he will be sentenced to anything less than 30 years in prison. Kotcherha is not facing a DUI, he is facing a major felony offense. In the eyes of a judge, a man like Kotcherha is a textbook candidate for a long term prison sentence.

While the above analysis only considers the limited facts reported in the news, it appears as though Kotcherha will be in custody for a long time.

Pompano Beach, Florida - According to the Miami Herald, Stephen Knapp, 37, and Richard Lewis, 43 were arrested last week for allegedly stealing jewelry from a Broward elderly couple. The Broward Sheriff's Office claims that the duo operated a home cleaning service called "Mister Maid" which gave them access to the inside of the elderly couple's home. After stealing jewelry from their clients, Knapp and Lewis allegedly pawned the items to support their addiction to Roxicodone pain pills.

For those who are unaware, Roxicodone is an extremely addictive narcotic pain medication. It works by dulling the pain perception center in the brain. Roxicodone is also one of the main narcotics behind the pain pill epidemic in South Florida.

Given the fact that these two provided their fingerprints when pawning the stolen property, the likelihood of beating their criminal cases may be slim. Because their victims are senior citizens, the duo is also subject to enhanced penalties for elderly exploitation.

It is no secret that mental health disorders exist symbiotically with substance abuse problems. Before deciding on any legal strategy, it may be worthwhile to subject Knapp and Lewis to mental health evaluations.

Even though their underlying motivation may be based on drug addiction, their case will not qualify for drug court because they are accused of stealing. Moreover, the fact that their case is enhanced by the elderly nature of the alleged victims, drug court would not accept their case.

However, in the unlikely event that the victims are sympathetic to the duo, and do not demand hefty prison sentences, it may be possible to ask the judge for a mitigated sentence based on the need to treat a true mental health disorder that is driving drug addiction and the criminal conduct that transpired in this case. Of course, Knapp and Lewis would have to take responsibility for their actions early in the progression of the case. Additionally, there is no guarantee that the judge will mitigate any mandatory prison sentence.

However, when going to trial is not an option, the next best thing is to attack the sentence. By building a case based on mitigation, Knapp and Lewis may be able to minimize or avoid a potential prison sentence.