1 BALANCING THE SIXTH AMENDMENT ON THE SCALES OF JUSTICE: IS THE LAWYER OR THE CLIENT IN CONTROL OF THE PROCEEDINGS? Caroline Johnson Levine* After declaring its independence from England on July 4, 1776, the United States began drafting a written expression of its desire to create a national government and ratified the Articles of Confederation on March 1, However, in order to create a stronger central government, the Articles of Confederation were replaced with the United States Constitution on March 4, Soon thereafter, the First United States Congress and the States ratified the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution on December 15, These amendments are routinely referred to as the Bill of Rights. 2 Authored by James Madison, the Bill of Rights were created in an effort to guarantee individual freedoms, limit federal power, and reserve power to the States. 3 The United * Caroline Johnson Levine is a Professor of Florida Constitutional Law at the Thomas M. Cooley School of Law. She is an appointed member of the Editorial Board for the Federal Bar Association s Federal Lawyer magazine and the Chair of the Federal Bar Association s State and Local Government Section. She is also an appointed member of the Florida Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism and the Vice Chair of the Florida Bar s Professionalism Committee. J. D., Florida State University, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., LIBRARY OF CONG., S. Doc. No , THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 25 n.2 (1996). 2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 459 (1966) (quoting Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 (1886)) ( Those who framed our Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ever aware of subtle encroachments on individual liberty. They knew that illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing... by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. ). 3 The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. U.S. CONST. amend. X; see United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941) ( The [Tenth] [A]mendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers. ); Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, 90 (1907) ( [The Tenth Amendment s] principal purpose was not the distribution of power between the United States and the States, but a reservation to the people of all powers not granted. The preamble of the 1455
2 1456 Albany Law Review [Vol States Constitution has been the legal guidepost of every American citizen s rights for over two hundred years. Impressively, the plain language of the Constitution is as clear to the modern day practitioner as it was in the eighteenth century. However, the privileges granted by the Bill of Rights are routinely debated in state and federal courts. 4 As seemingly novel issues are litigated in courtrooms throughout the fifty states, the judicial branch has been tasked with interpreting the Constitution s controlling text. The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that every citizen arrested for a criminal offense has the right to utilize a defense attorney, who may provide legal representation throughout the term of the proceedings. 5 However, if a criminal defendant facing severe penalties chooses to accept the services of an attorney, the defendant forfeits his ability to make certain decisions that affect the course and nature of his criminal defense. 6 In Puglisi v. State, the Florida Supreme Court recently interpreted the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution to hold that a criminal defendant cannot decide for himself the manner in which he will present his criminal defense. 7 In fact, Puglisi establishes that every defendant who retains the services of an attorney must relinquish a great deal of decision-making authority in his criminal case. 8 Vincent Puglisi was a criminal defendant who was charged with the brutal murder of Alan Shalleck. 9 Shalleck was a seventy six Constitution declares who framed it, we the people of the United States, not the people of one State, but the people of all the States, and Article X reserves to the people of all the States the powers not delegated to the United States. The powers affecting the internal affairs of the States not granted to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, and all powers of a national character which are not delegated to the National Government by the Constitution are reserved to the people of the United States. ). 4 See Joyce A. McCray Pearson, The Federal and State Bills of Rights: A Historical Look at the Relationship Between America s Documents of Individual Freedom, 36 HOW. L.J. 43, (1993). 5 The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence [sic]. U.S. CONST. amend. VI. 6 See Puglisi v. State, 112 So. 3d 1196, (Fla. 2013). 7 8 at at 1198.
3 2013/2014] Balancing the Sixth Amendment 1457 year old man who had spent many years in show business and had show business friends. 10 Jerry Stiller, who played Frank Costanza on the sitcom Seinfeld and is the father of the actor Ben Stiller, was a college friend of Shalleck and had spoken on the telephone with Shalleck on the evening of the murder. 11 Additionally, Shalleck s uncle presided over the wedding of Jerry Stiller. 12 However, Shalleck s real claim to fame was his collaboration with the author of Curious George, Margaret Rey, which resulted in the creation of an animated series for television in the 1980s. 13 Additionally, Shalleck co-authored twenty eight Curious George books with Rey. 14 Unfortunately, Shalleck mismanaged his income into personal bankruptcy and moved into a trailer in Boynton Beach, Florida. 15 Puglisi and Rex Ditto answered a personal ad in a newspaper placed by Shalleck. 16 Subsequently, Puglisi and Ditto were invited into Shalleck s residence and proceeded to beat, choke, and stab Shalleck. 17 Shalleck died from multiple stab wounds and blunt head trauma, having received eighty-three blunt force injuries and thirty-seven sharp force injuries. 18 Puglisi and Ditto covered Shalleck in trash bags and left Shalleck s body on his driveway. 19 Additionally, Puglisi and Ditto stole Shalleck s jewelry, coins, and checkbook. 20 Puglisi and Ditto were both charged with first degree murder and robbery, which made each defendant eligible for the death penalty. 21 Ditto pled guilty to his criminal charges and received a life 10 See Amy Guthrie, Cartoon Creator s Grisly Murder, MIAMI NEW TIMES, Feb. 7, 2008, Shalleck was involved in the production of long-running television programs, such as Winky Dink and You, Pixanne, and Captain Kangaroo ; see also JERRY STILLER, MARRIED TO LAUGHTER: A LOVE STORY FEATURING ANNE MEARA 301 (2000) (recounting that Shalleck was able to land Stiller a spot on the television show The Price is Right, which resulted in Stiller winning a turkey). 13 See Alan Shalleck; Brought Curious George to TV, WASH. POST, Feb. 9, 2006, 14 See Guthrie, supra note Missy Diaz, Defendant Narrates Knife Slaying, SUN SENTINEL, June 19, 2007, Puglisi v. State, 112 So. 3d 1196, 1198 (Fla. 2013) Diaz, supra note 16; Guthrie, supra note Puglisi, 112 So. 3d at 1198.
4 1458 Albany Law Review [Vol sentence. 22 Puglisi requested a jury trial and was found guilty. 23 He avoided the death penalty because the trial judge believed that Puglisi should receive the same life sentence that Ditto received. 24 Puglisi and Ditto were initially identified as suspects in Shalleck s murder when law enforcement officers discovered evidence of Puglisi s prior phone calls to Shalleck. 25 Police detectives met with Puglisi and informed him of his Miranda rights. 26 During Puglisi s initial interview, he claimed to have no knowledge of the Shalleck murder and inferred that Ditto may have been involved in Shalleck s demise. 27 However, during a second interview, Puglisi admitted to participating in the murder of Shalleck. 28 During Puglisi s murder trial, his defense attorneys wrestled with the decision of whether or not to have Ditto testify on behalf of Puglisi. 29 Puglisi s attorney represented to the court that we learned that Mr. Ditto is prepared to testify that Mr. Puglisi did nothing, that he Mr. Ditto is the sole one responsible for the death of Mr. Shalleck and that he lied in the past [and implicated Puglisi] because of [Ditto s] fear of the death penalty. 30 Puglisi s defense attorney and the prosecutor both represented to the court that Ditto had verbally vacillated, to attorneys and other witnesses, regarding whether Puglisi was guilty or innocent of Shalleck s murder. 31 Due to Ditto s inconsistent statements and the probability of his extensive impeachment on the witness stand, Puglisi s defense attorneys represented to the court that they would not present Ditto s testimony to the jury. 32 However, Puglisi insisted to the trial 22 Guthrie, supra note Puglisi, 112 So. 3d at Nancy L. Oth, Man Gets Life Sentence in Killing, SUN SENTINEL, July 17, 2008, 25 Puglisi, 112 So. 3d at ; see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966) ( As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are required. Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. ). 27 Puglisi, 112 So. 3d at at at at
5 2013/2014] Balancing the Sixth Amendment 1459 court that he wished to have Ditto testify as a defense witness. 33 Puglisi s defense attorneys argued that preventing Ditto s testimony was a strategic decision by the defense team. 34 The trial court chose to accept the strategy of Puglisi s defense attorneys and Ditto was not allowed to testify to the jury. 35 Puglisi appealed his criminal conviction to Florida s Fourth District Court of Appeal and argued that it was error for the trial court to refuse to allow Puglisi to call Ditto as a witness despite defense counsel s determination that calling Ditto would not be of benefit to Puglisi s case. 36 The appellate court dismissed Puglisi s argument and affirmed his criminal conviction and prison sentence. 37 Further, the appellate court held that the decision regarding which witnesses should be called by the defense is not a fundamental decision to be made by the defendant himself, explaining that such a decision is better made by a professional advocate who is considering not just what the anticipated testimony might be, but issues of credibility and potential harm to the defendant as well. 38 Additionally, the appellate court relied upon the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision in United States v. Burke, 39 which held that a defendant has the ultimate authority to make fundamental decisions for his case... [which are] whether to plead guilty, waive a jury, testify in his or her own behalf or to take an appeal. 40 Puglisi appealed the District Court of Appeal s decision to the Florida Supreme Court. 41 In every appeal of a trial court decision in Florida, there is always a threshold question of whether an appellate court has jurisdiction. The State of Florida has twenty judicial circuits in which all trial 33 at Puglisi argued to the court [a]s far as my attorneys are concerned, it s hopeless, I m gonna they ve already got me hung, I m losing the case. That s why I figured, well, if I have nothing to lose, that s why I want to call Mr. Ditto, because that s maybe my one last chance of hope, you know, if he ll come clean and be honest and that s what s going on. at at at Puglisi s attorneys argued to the court that Puglisi agreed that his defense attorneys could concede to the jury in closing arguments that Puglisi was guilty of two misdemeanor crimes of culpable negligence and theft. at However, Puglisi told the court that, I didn t talk to them about any of this [and] I still want Mr. Ditto to come [and testify]. at Puglisi v. State, 56 So. 3d 787, 792 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010). 37 at at United States v. Burke, 257 F.3d 1321, 1323 (11th Cir. 2001). 40 at 792 (quoting Burke, 257 F.3d at 1323). 41 Puglisi v. State, 112 So. 3d 1196, 1197 (Fla. 2013).
6 1460 Albany Law Review [Vol level proceedings are conducted. 42 Litigants who wish to appeal a trial court order must file an appeal in one of the five district courts of appeal. 43 The ultimate appellate state court is the Florida Supreme Court. 44 Importantly, it is not always possible for a litigant to appeal a district court of appeal decision to the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Constitution has granted only limited jurisdiction to the Supreme Court to hear appeals from a district court of appeal. The five categories of jurisdiction are (1) mandatory appellate jurisdiction; (2) discretionary review jurisdiction; (3) discretionary original jurisdiction; (4) exclusive jurisdiction; and (5) advisory opinions. 45 Many of these jurisdictional categories are very specific and limited in scope, such as mandatory appellate jurisdiction, which is limited to appeals of death penalty cases, validation of public revenue bonds, Florida Public Service Commission decisions, and a district court of appeal s declaration of the invalidity of a statute or constitutional provision. 46 Accordingly, many appellants believe that the only viable option to obtain Supreme Court review would be to proceed under the catch-all category of discretionary review jurisdiction. The Florida Supreme Court may review district courts of appeal opinions which contain a written decision that details the court s reasoning and which expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of another district court of appeal or of the supreme court on the same question of law. 47 Fundamentally, the conflicting opinions must appear within the four corners of the majority decision. 48 Specifically, the opinion must contain a statement or citation effectively establishing a point of law upon which the decision rests. 49 Therefore, unless an appellant can substantially argue that the holding in his or her case is in irreconcilable conflict with another jurisdiction s opinion or that the district court of appeal erroneously misapplied case precedent, the chance of 42 FLA. CONST. art. V, See id. 3(b) (stating the extent of the Supreme Court s jurisdiction). 46 3(b)(1) (3); see, e.g., Trepal v. State, 754 So. 2d 702, 707 (Fla. 2000) (quoting State v. Matute-Chirinos, 713 So. 2d 1006, 1008 (Fla. 1998)) ( [I]n addition to our appellate jurisdiction over sentences of death, we have exclusive jurisdiction to review all types of collateral proceedings in death penalty cases. ). 47 FLA. CONST. art. V, 3(b)(3); see also FLA. R. APP. P (2)(A)(iv). 48 Reaves v. State, 485 So. 2d 829, 830 (Fla. 1986). 49 Fla. Star v. B.J.F., 530 So. 2d 286, 288 (Fla. 1988).
7 2013/2014] Balancing the Sixth Amendment 1461 obtaining discretionary review is severely limited. 50 In this case, Puglisi appealed the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal to the Florida Supreme Court on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Cain v. State... on a question of law. The Fourth District subsequently certified conflict with the Fifth District s decision in Cain. 51 The Florida Supreme Court found that it had jurisdiction to hear Puglisi s appeal. 52 Puglisi contend[ed] that a competent defendant, especially one facing the death penalty, should not be deprived of the right to make tactical decisions merely because trial counsel disagrees. 53 Additionally, Puglisi relied on the Florida Supreme Court s prior decision in Blanco v. State, 54 which he argued authorized a criminal defendant to be the ultimate decision maker in a criminal case. 55 In Puglisi, the Florida Supreme Court relied upon the United States Supreme Court finding in Wainwright v. Sykes 56 that the accused has the ultimate authority to make certain fundamental decisions regarding the case, as to whether to plead guilty, waive a jury, testify in his or her own behalf, or take an appeal. 57 However, the Florida Supreme Court also recognized that an attorney is entitled to use his professional judgment, after consulting and considering defense strategy with his client, 58 and can refuse to 50 ( In effect, [it] is a limiting principle dictated to this Court by the people of Florida. While our subject-matter jurisdiction in conflict cases necessarily is very broad, our discretion to exercise it is more narrowly circumscribed by what the people have commanded. ). 51 Puglisi v. State, 112 So. 3d 1196, 1197 (Fla. 2013) (citing Cain v. State, 565 So. 2d 875, 876 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)). 52 ; see FLA. CONST. art. V, 3(b)(3), (4). 53 Puglisi, 112 So. 3d at 1204; see U.S. CONST. amend. VI ( In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. ) (emphasis added); FLA. CONST. art. I, 16(a) ( In all criminal prosecutions the accused... shall have the right to have compulsory process for witnesses, to confront at trial adverse witnesses, to be heard in person, by counsel or both, and to have a speedy and public trial by impartial jury in the county where the crime was committed. ) (emphasis added). 54 Blanco v. State, 452 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1984). 55 See Puglisi, 112 So. 3d at 1204; Blanco, 452 So. 2d at 524 ( The trial court finally ruled in favor of allowing appellant to present to the jury whatever evidence appellant felt was beneficial. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not err in allowing appellant to present witnesses. The ultimate decision is the defendant s. ). 56 Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977). 57 Puglisi, 112 So. 3d at 1204 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751 (1983)); see Wainwright, 433 U.S. at 93 n.1 (Burger, C.J., concurring); R. REGULATING FLA. BAR (a) ( In a criminal case, the lawyer shall abide by the client s decision, after consultation with the lawyer, as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury trial, and whether the client will testify. ); see MODEL RULES OF PROF L CONDUCT R. 1.2(a) (2012). 58 Puglisi, 112 So. 3d at 1205; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, (1984).
8 1462 Albany Law Review [Vol raise many issues requested by the defendant. 59 The Florida Supreme Court determined in Puglisi that it is necessary to provide lawyers with substantial power when representing a client: We hold that the decision to present witnesses is not a fundamental decision resting exclusively with a criminal defendant when he or she is represented by counsel. Defense counsel must have the ultimate authority in exercising his or her client s constitutional right to present witnesses as such is a tactical, strategic decision within counsel s professional judgment. Therefore, if a criminal defendant disagrees with his or her attorney as to whether to have a witness testify at trial, it is the defense counsel who has the ultimate authority on the matter so long as he or she continues to represent the defendant. The decision ultimately made by counsel is and must be binding on his or her client. A contrary holding would seriously undermine the ability of counsel to present the client s case in accord with counsel s professional evaluation, disserve the very goal of vigorous and effective advocacy, and likely pave the way for strategic decisions ordinarily entrusted by trained counsel to be delegated to the accused. 60 Relying on United States v. Burke, 61 the Florida Supreme Court argued that it must defend the adversarial system of justice by allowing the attorney to retain the ultimate decision-making authority over the defendant s demands, notwithstanding the 59 Puglisi, 112 So. 3d at 1204 (citing Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 754 (1983)) ( [T]he Sixth Amendment does not require appellate attorneys to press every non-frivolous issue that the criminal defendant requests to be raised on appeal so long as counsel uses professional judgment in deciding not to raise those issues. ); see Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 418 (1988) ( [T]he lawyer has and must have full authority to manage the conduct of the trial. The adversary process could not function effectively if every tactical decision required client approval. ). 60 Puglisi, 112 So. 3d at (footnotes omitted) (citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 820 (1975)) (quoting Jones, 463 U.S. at 751, 754). 61 United States v. Burke, 257 F.3d 1321, 1323 (11th Cir. 2001) ( Defense counsel in a criminal trial is more than an adviser to a client with the client s having the final say at each point. He is an officer of the court and a professional advocate pursuing a result almost always, acquittal within the confines of the law; his chief reason for being present is to exercise his professional judgment to decide tactics.... When the defendant is given the last word about how his case will be tried, the defendant becomes his own trial lawyer. If we add to the list of circumstances in which a defendant can trump his counsel s decision, the adversarial system becomes less effective as the opinions of lay persons are substituted for the judgment of legally trained counsel. The sound functioning of the adversarial system is critical to the American system of criminal justice. We intend to defend it. ).
9 2013/2014] Balancing the Sixth Amendment 1463 defendant s fundamental rights provided in Wainwright. 62 Additionally, the Florida Supreme Court has previously determined that there is no constitutional right for hybrid representation at trial 63 and that a defendant cannot act as legal co-counsel in his criminal case. 64 To the extent that the Florida Courts in Blanco and Cain disagreed with the antecedent decision issued by the United States Supreme Court in Wainwright, the Florida Supreme Court receded from Blanco and disapproved of Cain. 65 Importantly, the Florida Supreme Court asserted that a defendant who believes that he received inadequate representation from his attorney, retains the option of fighting his conviction by filing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which may result in a new trial with a new defense attorney. 66 The Florida Supreme Court held in Puglisi that a criminal defendant does not have the authority to make strategic decisions in his case and that it is the defense counsel that has the final authority as to whether or not the defense will call a particular witness to testify at the criminal trial. 67 In a unanimous decision, the Florida Supreme Court found that the Sixth Amendment grants defendants only four fundamental rights in a criminal case: whether to plead guilty, waive a jury, testify in his or her own behalf, or take an appeal. 68 A defendant who chooses to represent himself would have free reign to proceed in any direction he believes would assist his defense. Otherwise, strategic decisions that a 62 Puglisi, 112 So. 3d at ; Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 93 n.1 (1977). 63 Mora v. State, 814 So. 2d 322, 328 (Fla. 2002). 64 See Sheppard v. State, 17 So. 3d 275, 279 (Fla. 2009); State v. Tait, 387 So. 2d 338, 340 (Fla. 1980). 65 Puglisi, 112 So. 3d at ; see Wainwright, 433 U.S. at 93 (Burger, C.J., concurring) ( Once counsel is appointed, the day-to-day conduct of the defense rests with the attorney. He, not the client, has the immediate and ultimate responsibility of deciding if and when to object, which witnesses, if any, to call, and what defenses to develop. Not only do these decisions rest with the attorney, but such decisions must as a practical matter, be made without consulting the client. The trial process simply does not permit the type of frequent and protracted interruptions which would be necessary if it were required that clients give knowing and intelligent approval to each of the myriad tactical decisions as a trial proceeds. ) (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted). 66 Puglisi, 112 So. 3d at 1209 (Pariente, J., concurring) ( Rather, the failure of defense counsel to call witnesses requested by the defendant should be evaluated in a postconviction setting regarding whether the defense counsel made a reasonable strategic determination, after examining all applicable considerations. ); see FLA. R. CRIM. P (2013) (providing an additional two years to the statute of limitations for counsel s failure to file a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence). 67 Puglisi, 112 So. 3d at at 1205 (quoting Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751 (1983)).
10 1464 Albany Law Review [Vol defendant s attorney chooses to make in a trial, are not within the control of a criminal defendant.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs November 04, 2014 WILLIAM NEWSON v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County No. C13358 Roy B. Morgan,
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
TIPS FOR HANDLING FEDERAL CRIMINAL APPEALS By Henry J. Bemporad Deputy Federal Public Defender Western District of Texas Like any field of law, criminal appellate practice is an inexact science. No one
BASIC CRIMINAL LAW Overview of a criminal case Presented by: Joe Bodiford Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer www.floridacriminaldefense.com www.blawgger.com THE FLORIDA CRIMINAL PROCESS Source: http://www.fsu.edu/~crimdo/cj-flowchart.html
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED August 28, 2008 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in
A Citizen s Guide to the Criminal Justice System: From Arraignment to Appeal Presented by the Office of the Richmond County District Attorney Acting District Attorney Daniel L. Master, Jr. 130 Stuyvesant
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (3d 121065-U Order filed
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR WOODBURY COUNTY THE STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff, vs. Defendant. CRIMINAL NO. WRITTEN PLEA OF GUILTY AND WAIVER OF RIGHTS (OWI First Offense) COMES NOW the above-named Defendant
Section 15-23-60 Definitions. As used in this article, the following words shall have the following meanings: (1) ACCUSED. A person who has been arrested for committing a criminal offense and who is held
A NEW OBLIGATION FOR CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS A practicing attorney for over 17 years, Jorge G. Aristotelidis is board certified in criminal law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, and is a former
TLOA A Review of Jurisdictional Licensing Requirements in the U.S. Patricia Rae Lenzi Program Attorney NTJC With thanks to Professor Alfredo Garcia, St. Thomas University School of Law, Miami FL Dorothy
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2010-IA-02028-SCT RENE C. LEVARIO v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/23/2010 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ROBERT P. KREBS COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: JACKSON COUNTY
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-14-00020-CR EX PARTE DIMAS ROJAS MARTINEZ ---------- FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 ----------
RULES OF SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA PART THREE A CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE APPENDIX Form 6. Suggested Questions to Be Put by the Court to an Accused Who Has Pleaded Guilty (Rule 3A:8). Before accepting
Office of the Attorney General Information for Crime Victims and Witnesses MARCH 2009 LAWRENCE WASDEN Attorney General Criminal Law Division Special Prosecutions Unit Telephone: (208) 332-3096 Fax: (208)
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 40822 DAMON MARCELINO LOPEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent. 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 722 Filed: September 15, 2014 Stephen
No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Amendment V. Defendant may not be compelled
DESCRIPTION OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR DEFENDANTS DESCRIPTION OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR DEFENDANTS This pamphlet has been provided to help you better understand the federal
RIGHT TO COUNSEL State v. Langley, 351 Or. 652 (2012) Oregon Supreme Court FACTS In December 1989, a jury found defendant Langley guilty of murdering a woman named Ann Gray. A few months later, Langley
The Legal System in the United States At the conclusion of this chapter, students will be able to: 1. Understand how the legal system works; 2. Explain why laws are necessary; 3. Discuss how cases proceed
1. No. 108,809 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. SHANE RAIKES, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT Generally, issues not raised before the district court, even constitutional
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-5077 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JUSTIN FOWLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District
Subchapter 6.600 Criminal Procedure in District Court Rule 6.610 Criminal Procedure Generally (A) Precedence. Criminal cases have precedence over civil actions. (B) Pretrial. The court, on its own initiative
Case 1:03-cr-00422-LEK Document 24 Filed 05/02/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PATRICK GILBERT, Petitioner, -against- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 1:05-CV-0325 (LEK)
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT
LEGAL MALPRACTICE AND THE CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY By Peter L. Ostermiller Occasionally, a defendant, while incarcerated and apparently having nothing better to do, will file a Motion under RCr. 11.42,
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT STATE OF MISSOURI, v. ROBERT E. WHEELER, Respondent, Appellant. WD76448 OPINION FILED: August 19, 2014 Appeal from the Circuit Court of Caldwell County,
Case 1:11-cr-00326-SCJ-JFK Document 119-1 Filed 01/20/12 Page 1 of 16 GUILTY PLEA and PLEA AGREEMENT United States Attorney Northern District of Georgia UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
THE MINNESOTA LAWYER September 6, 2004 MN Court of Appeals Allows Testimony on Battered-Woman Syndrome By Michelle Lore A District Court judge properly allowed an expert on battered-woman syndrome to testify
Stages in a Capital Case from http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/ Note that not every case goes through all of the steps outlined here. Some states have different procedures. I. Pre-Trial Crimes that would
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE KEVIN D. TALLEY, Defendant-Below No. 172, 2003 Appellant, v. Cr. ID No. 0108005719 STATE OF DELAWARE, Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware,
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court *** Filed *** 01/26/2015 8:00 AM THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN STATE OF ARIZONA CLERK OF THE COURT J. Eaton Deputy GARY L SHUPE v. MONICA RENEE JONES (001) JEAN JACQUES CABOU
A Federal Criminal Case Timeline The following timeline is a very broad overview of the progress of a federal felony case. Many variables can change the speed or course of the case, including settlement
Senate Engrossed State of Arizona Senate Forty-fifth Legislature First Regular Session 0 SENATE BILL AN ACT AMENDING SECTION -, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, AS AMENDED BY LAWS 00, CHAPTER, SECTION ; AMENDING
COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, F065134 v. Kern County Superior Court ARMANDO ALVAREZQUINTERO, No. BF132212A
INTRODUCTION The purpose of this handbook is to provide answers to some very basic questions that inmates or inmates families might have regarding the processes of the criminal justice system. In no way
Case: 1:08-cr-00220-PAG Doc #: 24 Filed: 09/29/08 1 of 5. PageID #: 80 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CASE NO. 08 CR 220 Plaintiff, JUDGE
AMERICAN CONSTITUTION SOCIETY (ACS) SIXTH AMENDMENT LESSON PLAN RIGHT TO COUNSEL JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Description: This unit was created to introduce students to the Sixth Amendment though the Supreme Court
Personal Injury Wrongful Death Slip & Fall Automobile Accidents Trucking Accidents Motorcycle Accidents Medical Malpractice Criminal Defense You re Under ARREST! What Happens Now? Do NOT Speak to Police
2014 IL App (1st) 120762-U No. 1-12-0762 FIFTH DIVISION February 28, 2014 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
BEFORE THE EVIDENTIARY PANEL FOR STATE BAR DISTRICT NO. 08-2 STATE BAR OF TEXAS 11 Austin Office COMMISSION FOR LAWYER * DISCIPLINE, * Petitioner * * 201400539 v. * * CHARLES J. SEBESTA, JR., * Respondent
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA ERIC EDENFIELD, v. Petitioner, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D09-6554
NOTICE This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (4th 130903-U NO. 4-13-0903
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, ex rel. No. 1 CA-SA 12-0201 WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY, Maricopa County Attorney, DEPARTMENT A Petitioner, Maricopa County Superior Court
THE US LEGAL SYSTEM: A Short Description Federal Judicial Center Background The United States Constitution establishes a federal system of government. The Constitution gives specific powers to the federal
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CP-00221-COA FREDDIE LEE MARTIN A/K/A FREDDIE L. MARTIN APPELLANT v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/08/2013 TRIAL JUDGE:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE EDWIN SCARBOROUGH, Defendant Below- Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below- Appellee. No. 38, 2014 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware,
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A06-1439 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Timothy
CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM: Addressing Deficiencies in Idaho s Public Defense System By delegating to each county the responsibility to provide counsel at the trial level without any state funding or oversight,
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-4684 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, versus Plaintiff - Appellee, BERNARD JERIDORE, a/k/a Benny B, a/k/a Bernie, Defendant - Appellant.
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT M. A. JOHNSON ANOKA COUNTY ATTORNEY ANOKA, MINNESOTA JUNE 4, 2009 ON INDIGENT REPRESENTATION: A GROWING NATIONAL CRISIS TESTIMONY OF ROBERT M.A. JOHNSON FOR THE HOUSE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE
Some Things You Should Know An Introduction to the Federal Public Defender=s Office and the Federal Court System Office of the Federal Public Defender Southern District of West Virginia 300 Virginia Street
2:10-cr-20535-DML-MAR Doc # 335 Filed 05/31/13 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 6782 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Plaintiff, BOBBY W. FERGUSON,
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 16, 2001 Session STEVE EDWARD HOUSTON v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Giles County No. 9082 Robert L. Jones,
FRANK DONALD WILLIAMS; DANIEL LARRY; DANIEL LABATO; JOSEPH STONE; STEPHANIE SLATER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit TENTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 14-3137 United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Lacresia Joy White lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant Appeal
Supreme Court of Georgia. ROLLINS v. STATE ROLLINS v. The STATE. No. S03A1419. -- January 12, 2004 Abbi T. Guest, Decatur, for appellant.daniel J. Porter, Dist. Atty., David B. Fife, Asst. Dist. Atty.,
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4037 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. REGGIE ANDRE BECKTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States
-rev & rem-slz 2014 S.D. 89 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, v. BRANDON M. WOLF, Plaintiff and Appellant, Defendant and Appellee. MARTY J. JACKLEY Attorney General
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. AARON REGINALD CHAMBERS, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0392-PR Filed March 4, 2015 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT
General District Courts To Understand Your Visit to Court You Should Know: It is the courts wish that you know your rights and duties. We want every person who comes here to receive fair treatment in accordance
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) ) v. ) No. ) (Judge ) ) ) PETITION TO ENTER A PLEA OF GUILTY (Misdemeanor) I,, respectfully represent
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed June 23, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-01390-CR LUIS ANTONIO RIQUIAC QUEUNAY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal
From: "We The People for Independent Texas" Subject: No contract - No case. *Reference Material For information only* The following was put together by one of our classmates! Good job! Well Done! Courts
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Elder, Frank and Millette Argued at Alexandria, Virginia CHRISTOPHER J. MARTIN MEMORANDUM OPINION BY v. Record No. 0035-07-4 JUDGE LeROY F. MILLETTE, JR. APRIL
Case 2:03-cr-00122-JES Document 60 Filed 02/19/08 Page 1 of 7 PageID 178 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION FRANCIS MACKEY DAVISON, III, Petitioner, vs. Case No.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, Petitioner/Defendant, v. Case No.: SC09-1045 Lower Case Nos.:4D08-3090; 07-10734 CF10B STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent/Plaintiff. / PETITIONER S JURISDICTIONAL
RENDERED: JANUARY 15, 2010; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2008-CA-000763-MR COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE
2015 IL App (1st) 140740-U FIRST DIVISION October 5, 2015 No. 1-14-0740 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A14-0553 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Darrell
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS: CRIMINAL TERM PART 24 -----------------------------------------------------------------x THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK DECISION AND ORDER Indictment
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ANTIONETTE CHENIER No. 14 CR 185 Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan PLEA AGREEMENT 1. This Plea Agreement
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC08-2163 IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.111. LABARGA, J. [August 27, 2009] This matter is before the Court for consideration sua sponte of amendments
T E X A S Y O U N G L A W Y E R S A S S O C I A T I O N A N D S T A T E B A R O F T E X A S C RIMINAL LAW 1 0 1 : O V E RVIEW OF T H E T E XAS C RIMINAL J USTICE P ROCESS A C RIMINAL LAW 1 0 1 Prepared
Facts for Federal Criminal Defendants FACTS FOR FEDERAL CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS I. INTRODUCTION The following is a short summary of what will happen to you if you are charged in a federal criminal case. This
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC06-2065 IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FINAL ARGUMENTS. [May 3, 2007] PER CURIAM. The Florida Bar s Criminal Procedure Rules Committee (Rules
PROPOSED MINIMUM STANDARDS SET 1 FOR DISTRIBUTION June 22, 2015 Introduction The statute creating the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission (MIDC) provides: The MIDC shall implement minimum standards, rules,
Boulder Municipal Court Boulder County Justice Center P.O. Box 8015 1777 6 th Street Boulder, CO 80306-8015 www.bouldercolorado.gov/court JURY READINESS CONFERENCE INSTRUCTIONS You have set your case for
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, v. Plaintiff-Respondent, NINA ADEBAJO, Defendant-Appellant.
Standard 1 Minimum Standards for Indigent Criminal Appellate Defense Services Including MAACS Comments Approved by the Michigan Supreme Court Effective January 1, 2005 Counsel shall promptly examine the
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED. v. CASE NO.: 1D05-4610
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.