Jacksonville Criminal Defense Law Blog

It's a confusing concept to many. How can a man plead guilty to causing a drunk driving accident but then turn around to sue the supposed victim for injury? ABC News reports that it was a 2007 DUI accident in Florida that has led to this complicated legal turn of events.

This story highlights that a guilty plea may not always be what the public makes it out to be. It's not always a blatant admission of guilt; rather, it can be a way to hurry up the legal process and try to move on with one's life. Or, it can be a way to avoid a potentially harsher sentence.

The movie "12 Angry Men" considers and studies the jury system by observing the deliberations of a jury impatient to wrap up a murder case, even though a life hangs in the balance. Juror 8 holds out and reviews evidence until the other jurors are either convinced of the defendant's innocence or personal prejudice is revealed.

In a case where life is the opposite of art, a lone holdout for an acquittal was removed from a jury for supposed bias. The juror was found to be biased against the court, allegedly lying about their capacity to fairly weigh evidence.

In today's worldwide access to media, can alleged victims or special interest groups taint a local jury pool? Do certain accused defendants attract excessive negative pretrial publicity?

Consider accused DUI defendants. A drunk driving suspect can be held in jail after a mere accusation and well past any reasonable chance to still be under the influence. Yet, many groups offer public humiliation for the accused by way of press releases and internet chatter. The public seems to think that stopping drunk driving rationalizes trial by newspaper and innuendo.

There is a hit TV program called "What Not to Wear" that takes people from sloppy dressers to fashion savvy dressers. It sounds like there could be a new edition of the show devoted to helping defendants in criminal cases dress themselves in order to impress a judge, or at least not completely shock him.

This idea comes up because of a recent report that a Florida drug trafficking defendant appeared at his hearing wearing what most mothers would tell their child to take off before leaving the house. The defendant reportedly wore a sweatshirt with cartoons that show how to make crack cocaine.

Historically, homeowners have been somewhat limited to use deadly force to protect their property unless someone's personal safety was in jeopardy. However, controversial new laws that are emerging in several states across the country, including Florida, could affect the amount of force that a homeowner is allowed to use to protect his home.

Florida was one of the first states to enact a castle doctrine in 2005, a law that allows homeowners to use deadly force against intruders. Shortly thereafter, more than 30 states enacted similar provisions. One recent case involving an Oklahoma mother who shot and killed an intruder demonstrates the gravity of the new law. Under the old rules, this woman may have been found guilty of committing a homicide; however, she was cleared of all criminal charges under the new law.

A murder trial is a serious thing for both prosecutors and defense attorneys, as well the suspect's and the victim's families. The family wants justice, and the accused wants the court to look carefully at the circumstances behind the crime and wants the system to make a sound decision on whether he is found guilty or not. However, even though the burden of proof in murder cases is supposed to be on the prosecution, in reality it is the defense that's responsible to prove that there is a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of a crime.

In a recent Florida murder case, a defense attorney found holes in the prosecution's case, even after a conviction had been dealt to the suspect, and a life sentence served by the judge. However, as he began taking steps toward filing an appeal, he was startled to discover that the majority of the court records had disappeared. The stenographer had taken notes digitally and the computer used was reportedly infected with a virus. Since the original trial cannot be referenced, a new trial will be held instead.

In the realm of the drug world, what's supposed to be a man's best friend can quickly become a foe. One Florida man's life has been rocked by the drug-sniffing nose of a Florida canine. This matter began in 2006, and now the man whose been charged with marijuana possession is taking his case all the way to the highest court.

The central question in this case is when is it okay for police to act on so-called evidence coming from a drug sniffing dog. Should the dog only be used as evidence if a warrant is already obtained, or should the dog's work be able to help legal authorities support their case for probable cause and, therefore, a search warrant for a person's home?

According to a recent study concluded in 2008, 16 to 27 percent of young people face the criminal justice system by getting arrested before reaching their 18th birthdays. Between 25 and 41 percent of study participants were arrested by the age of 23.

This alarming statistic requires some reflection. What causes this apparent rise in suspected criminal behavior? Is the modern youth more likely to have emotional behaviors or be part of an at-risk demographic? Do neighbors simply call the police instead of trying direct confrontation? Are police simply more apt to arrest instead of lecture?