Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Diligent lawyers know that there are two main ways the police can enter your home: 1) if you consent or 2) if they come with a search warrant. However, as diligent lawyers, we also know there are a couple seldom used exceptions where police can barge into your home without a warrant, and without your consent.

Protective action needed on an emergency basis is one of those exceptions.

Check out this case:
In an apartment complex, a neighbor is walking through the hallway when he suddenly smells the unmistakable odor of “death” emanating from another apartment. When the neighbor gets closer to the door, he sees large horseflies everywhere. These two observations, coupled with the fact that the neighbor had not seen the occupant of the apartment since 2007, led the neighbor to believe that the occupant might very well be dead and rotting inside.

When the neighbor knocked on the door, there was no response. Quickly, the neighbor called 911. When the officers arrived, the he relayed his observations and added that there is no way to see into the home; that he never saw any cars in the driveway; and that he never saw or heard any foot traffic from that apartment.

The officers confirmed many of the observations: the smell, the flies, etc., and concluded that it is very likely that someone may be dead or dying inside. When an officer found a window slightly cracked open, he received permission to enter from his superior and went inside.
What he saw was repulsive. A dead, decaying corpse of a dog lay in a cage.
The officer yelled but there was no answer. Still thinking that the owner may be inside and in need of medical assistance, a group of officers went into the home. No officer went through drawers or searched for any contraband; the objective was simply to find the owner of the home.
The officers did not see any blood trails, guns, bloody clothes, drag marks, or bloody trails inside the house.

The owner-defendant was eventually charged with Cruelty to Animals, a felony.
Was the entry into the home justified?

The defendant argues “no” because death does not mean emergency. And since death is final, there can be no medical emergency. The defendant also argues that in the 25 minutes that expired from when the police arrived to the time they entered the home, a search warrant could have been acquired. Finally, the defendant argues that the smell of death is not exigent and therefore the entry into the home was illegal, and the evidence should be suppressed .

Not so, says the State. The State points out that law enforcement has the right to respond to emergency circumstances and that the sanctity of life is more important than the sanctity of the home. Moreover, the issue is what a “reasonable person” would think, given the situation. The State argues that the idea that the owner may be incapacities and in need of medical attention was believable given the disarray of the home and the dead dog inside.

So who is right? Did the police overstep their authority when they went inside the home without a warrant and without consent? Was the believe that someone inside was in medical danger justified by the smell of death and horseflies? Would a reasonable person think that someone was inside the home?

At the end of the day the court sides with the State. The whole purpose of the 4th Amendment (no unreasonable searches) is to stop law enforcement from overreaching. The court held that the police acted reasonably and that their conclusion that someone may be inside, in medical trouble, was not so crazy that no reasonable person would conclude the same.

The case of Jon Benet Ramsey has always facinated me.  I love cases based solely on circumstantial evidence.  This case in particular has some of the most confusing clues I’ve ever seen. 

• JBR had eaten pineapple shortly before her death
• JBR had two small burn marks on her head consistent with a stun gun
• JBR’s mouth was covered with duct tape found in the house
• JBR was strangled with a garrote made from a paint brush from inside the house
• A randsom note was left demanding $118,000
• Mr. Ramsey (father) just received a Christmas bonus of exactly $118,000
• The handwriting on the note did not match either parent
• The note was writen on paper that came from inside the home
• In the basement, there was a suitcase placed directly below a window
• The was a scuff mark on the wall of the basement right below a window
• There was a boot print from the basement floor that has not been matched to any family member or friend
• There were no footprints in the snow outside the home
• DNA found on JBR does not match either parent

So now what?  The demand note is erie.  $118,000?  Did the murderer knew Mr. Ramsey?  Or did he just stumble upon a paycheck while he was going through the house?

What about the lack of footprints in the snow?  It seems that there was some snow around the house, but most of it had melted away.  Was it possible for an intruder to leave the home without leaving any footprints?

I always thought that the parents were innocent, but I could never quite believe the theory that a person entered the home, went to JBR’s bed, moved her from her bedroom to the downstairs area, fed her pineapple, found duct tape, found a paint brush, removed her to the basement, killed her, wrote a random note, and left through the same window he entered.  Does that sound plausible?

Will we ever know?  Until the DNA found on JBR’s body is matched, we will likely won’t have any new clues in this case.  Which mean we’re right back to where we started, stuck in the snow.

So this lawyer in Arizona is told just before trial: Don’t give your client any food, especially candy.

Lawyer thinks to himself “they can’t possibly arrest me if I do.”  Lawyer gives client candy and then thinks nothing of it … until suddenly there was a tapping, as if someone gently rapping, tapping at the Lawyer’s door.

Turns out the detention offices consulted with their boss, who made the call to arrest the lawyer for giving his client candy (contraband).

I actually side with law enforcement on this one.  It’s a simple rule that everyone knows.  You can’t give you client in-court benefits that he wouldn’t otherwise receive.  Correctional officers have a job to do, and security is the most important thing in their eyes.  It’s the same reason why families cannot give hugs to a defendant before he is brought to jail.

This is my type of lawyer: Ed Genson.  Win or die, he goes down fighting.

Rod Blagojevich just hired Genson to defend him in his likely criminal case in federal court.

He is the go-to guy in Chicago for people caught up in dire legal circumstances.  Genson is famed for taking on the toughest cases, where the situation is grim and the odds of victory are slim.  Genson does it for the love and could care less whether he actually gets his fee.

When I was in law school, a prominent lawyer once told me: Soon you will have to make a decision; you either do this for love or for money.

Since the day I heard this advice, I knew I was in it for the love.   I love all of it:  The cases, the prosecutors, the judges, the chess match, the trials, the characters, the unexplained, the unpredictable, the creativity, and the process.

I found this very interetsting about this guy Genson:  He rarely negotiates plea agreements.  He often will earn a sentence less than what the government was offering. 

He also loses.  Just as there are many victories, there are also many more defeats.  It’s unrealistic that a criminal defense lawyer can win ALL his cases, but a good criminal lawyer, at least, is not afraid of the fight.  This is my kind of lawyer: When the situation is grim and the odds are against you.

Ever see that show on the National Geographic channel Inside a Cult ?

The show brings viewers inside a cult in New Mexico founded by a man named Wayne Bent.  Mr. Bent declares himself the messiah, or the next coming of Jesus Christ.  Under this title, he has brought in about 20 followers, including his own son.  Mr. Bent also claims that God forces his - literally, physically forces him - to do certain acts like (i) have sex with his son’s wife, (ii) lay naked with teenages, and (iii) prepare for the end of the world on October 31, 2008 (which has already passed).

Did you catch that part about laying naked with teenagers?  Apparently Mr. Bent used to cuddle (is that the right word?) with female teenagers of the cult.  He says he never molested them or had sex with them … just laid there.  The parents of the teenagers eventually became upset and went to the police.

Mr. Bent went to trial.  Mr. Bent lost.  Jurors on Monday found cult leader Wayne Bent guilty of three of four he faced for inappropriately touching two teenaged girls.

One of the victims testified on behalf of Mr. Bent, stating it was simply a spirtual experience.

Sorry bud, when it comes to children, the law is the law.  Very difficult case for the defense, especially when the defendant admits to touching the children, and then insists on taking the stand. 

Personally when I saw the show, I need Mr. Bent would have a problem with the law sooner or later.  It must have been an interesting trial …

An Iranian woman, blinded by a jilted stalker who threw acid in her face, has persuaded a court to sentence him to be blinded with acid himself under Islamic law demanding an eye for an eye.

Query: Is this justice? 

The victim has no chance of recovering her sight.  She is permanently blind.  The defendant admitted to throwing the acid because of unrequited love.

I suspect it was the old “If I can’t have you, then no one can.”

In the U.S., this is probably Aggravated Battery - second degree felony.  The defendant would be looking at substantial prison time, especially because of the grusome facts of this case.  Of course, eventually the defendant would be let out of prison and be able to live his life, while his victim would still be home, blind.

On the other hand, blinding this man does seem barbaric. For states that have the death penalty, is this not the same?  Kill someone - we kill you.  Blind someone - we blind you.

For a visual, see this image of what a woman blinded by acid looks like.  Before you click, note that it is tough to look at.

Today, an electrical worker discoverd a set of bones belonging to a child near the grandparents’ home of Caylee Anthony.

Could this be the break in the case law enforcement was looking for?

So far, all the evidence against Casey is circumstantial, but here is a look:

1. Traces of a decomposing body found in her trunk.
2. Traces of chloroform found in her trunk.
3. Did not report child missing for over a month. Eventually, the grandmother called the police.
4. Strand of hair of Caylee found in trunk. This hair showed evidence of decomposition at root and is a definite DNA match to Caylee (daughter) or Casey (mother).

With a body, law enforcement could discover more forensic evidence. Should be a very interesting trial.

Click for the article about a Ohio lawyer who received six (6) months jail time for dropping the F-bomb in court.

Apparently, there was a hearing before a judge where the lawyer was representing himself in a condo/association issue. The lawyer for the condo perhaps said some things that were not exactly true. As the hearing concluded and the lawyer representing himself started to walk out, he said that the other lawyer was a “f**king liar.”

The judge heard.

Interestingly enough, just one day prior to this F-bomb, a criminal defendant uttered the same word and received 6 months in jail as well.

When this lawyer - in front of the same judge as the defendant one day before - said the same thing, the judge felt that he had no choice but to give the lawyer the same 6 month punishment.

Ouch.

Appeal?