Friday, July 22, 2011

Do mandatory minimum sentences in drug cases work?

Mandatory Minimum Sentences

Mandatory minimum sentences are imposed in drug crimes to attempt to convey the seriousness of the crimes to those involved, and to bring together the gaps in the sentences issued from state to state by Judges who were allowed to determine the sentence on a per case basis, up to the maximum penalty allowed. The question then, is are these mandatory guidelines actually working to deter criminal drug activity?

Supporters of mandatory sentencing laws state that they are definitely doing their job, yet those who work for defendant's rights state that these results are skewed and do not take pre-trial decisions into account. The argument being that when an accused is facing a heavier sentence than they deserve, prosecutors and defense attorneys work together to achieve a fairer outcome in the pre-trial stage, thus negating the mandatory minimum sentence entirely.

All sides agree however, that mandatory minimum sentencing laws have brought everyone to the same place in terms of state to state sentences for drug crimes. There are no longer lenient states and harsh states when it comes to drug crimes. Whether you commit the crime in Alaska or Florida, you're going to have the same sentence imposed.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Computer and Internet Crimes

Computer Crime

Computer Crime may encompass such activities as gaining unauthorized or unlawful access to a computer; changing or stealing information from a computer; contaminating or otherwise introducing a foreign program or destructive process to a computer system; using encryption or a computer to defraud or commit a crime; altering email information regarding computer sources and IP addresses; and using an information service from a pay provider without permission.

In addition to these strictly computer related criminal offenses, there are any number of activities one may engage in while online that would also be considered computer related crimes, though without the use of a computer, would simply be labeled as criminal offenses anyway.

Some of these kinds of crimes include Internet child pornography and various crimes involving sexual predators, all kinds of Internet piracy, cyber-based terrorism, and computer hacking or intrusions, among many others.

In order to understand the severity of these kinds of criminal activity, you must remember that these crimes are treated with the same diligence as non-computer related similar crimes are; just because the Internet has acted as a buffer-zone, does not make the activity any less illegal. In fact, in most Internet related criminal matters, the involvement of the FBI and CIA is almost a natural expectation, since these crimes can be considered global in nature and are bound to affect more than a few local people in their commission.

There is, however, still the possibility for grave errors and mistakes in judgment when it comes to pinpointing and located the perpetrators of many Internet crimes. The procedure is not foolproof, and much like the use of DNA evidence, has its limitations. At no time should you discuss anything, other than your name, with any Federal Agent who may question you regarding your involvement in computer related or Internet crimes without the advice and counsel of an experienced criminal defense attorney.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

RICO Act and Criminal Racketeering Laws

Criminal Racketeering and RICO

Criminal racketeering is the act of making money in a legitimate business by a criminal organization. This kind of illegal activity is covered in the RICO laws (Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organization), and allows for the seizure of all of the assets belonging to the organization.

The objective of these kinds of laws is to eliminate any sources of income for criminal organizations to use to perpetuate criminal activity.

While the Federal RICO Act was enacted in 1970, state governments have since enacted their own sets of RICO laws which allow plaintiff's to bring civil suits against defendants for injuries or damages sustained in criminal violations against them. Similar to the criminal Victim's Compensation Act, however plaintiffs in the state mandated RICO cases are allowed judgments up to three times the actual amount of damages sustained. The state RICO laws further differ from their Federal counter-parts in the statute of limitations, the expanse of criminal activities included in the laws, easier established elements, and recovery of damages that are non-existent in the Federal version.

In order for a crime charged under the RICO Act to be proven, the government must show that there was in fact an established business; that the enterprise affected interstate commerce and trade; that the person accused was involved or had knowledge of the enterprise, either as an associate, employee, or other involved party; that the defendant was further involved in a pattern of activity that could fall under the RICO/Racketeering Laws; and that at least two acts of racketeering were participated in by the defendant, while involved in and participating with the enterprise in question.

The criteria and burden of proof in a RICO case is very high for the government, and adherence to the various statute of limitations and proper gathering of evidence are critical to establishing a solid defensive case. An experienced criminal defense attorney can help establish the facts surrounding any accusations, and prepare a defense in your favor.


 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Friday, July 1, 2011

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, the Untold Story of ‘Conviction’

Ineffective Counsel - The Kenneth Waters Story


In 1983, after a five-day jury trial in Middlesex County Superior Court, Kenneth Waters was convicted of the first-degree murder and armed robbery of Katharina Brow. He was sentenced to life in prison, without the possibility of parole. However, if Waters’ lawyer had done his job in the first place, he probably would have never been convicted.

‘Conviction’ is a powerful film about the undaunted dedication of Betty Anne Waters in proving her brother’s innocence. Hilary Swank plays the lead role of Betty Anne, a sister who literally dedicates her life to exonerating her brother Kenny from an unjust murder conviction. Despite being a single mother with two young boys, at her brother’s insistence, Betty Anne enrolls at CCRI and eventually completes her bachelor’s degree at Rhode Island College and law degree at Roger Williams University Law School. During law school, she learned about DNA testing and the work of the Innocence Project in exonerating individuals wrongfully convicted of crimes.

In November of 1998, Betty Anne wrote to the Innocence Project requesting assistance in her brother’s case. After locating the blood evidence still stored in the basement of the Middlesex Courthouse, Betty Anne secured the assistance of the Innocence Project to test the blood evidence which later determined that the DNA of the perpetrator did not match Waters. Kenny Waters was released from prison in 2001.

I first learned about Betty Anne Waters seven years ago when she was the guest speaker at the Rhode Island Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ annual meeting. Betty Anne told this very powerful story about with such amazing grace and humility. I sat in wonder over her absolute dedication to her brother’s cause, a dedication that spanned over two decades. I also couldn’t help think about the mistakes made by Waters’ defense counsel that led to his conviction. Recently, Betty Anne was kind enough to sit down and relate to me some lessons of her brother’s case that that all defense attorneys should be aware of.

“My family and I visited all of the top lawyers in the area, including F. Lee Bailey, but they all wanted a huge sum of money, up to fifty thousand dollars, just to get started,” remarked Betty Anne. “In my family, no one had graduated college and we had no money. We wanted to raise the funds but Kenny did not want the family spending money on a lawyer for a crime he didn’t commit.”

Throughout his case, Waters was represented by an experienced court-appointed attorney. “He seemed to have a command of the courtroom and told us that he had tried many murder cases, so we trusted him” noted Betty Anne. However, in the 28 years that elapsed since her brother’s conviction, Betty Anne learned that this attorney never properly investigated this case and was completely ineffective in obtaining available evidence that proved his innocence.

Kenny Waters was not convicted based upon eye-witness identification, forensic evidence or a confession to police. Instead, he was convicted primarily as a result of the testimony of two ex-girlfriends, both of which testified that Waters admitted to them that he had killed Katharina Brow. Their testimony, along with Waters’ failure to prove his alibi defense, was enough to convict him of first-degree murder with extreme atrocity and sentence him to life in prison without the possibility of parole. His appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was heard and denied in 1987.
While DNA testing eventually cleared Waters, if his defense counsel had done his job in the first place, he probably would have never been convicted.

During grand jury proceedings, officials from the Ayer Police testified that no usable latent prints were recovered from the crime scene. Yet no defense motions were ever filed to confirm this testimony. In fact, Massachusetts State Police had recovered several usable latent prints from the crime scene that were identified as belonging to the perpetrator. These prints were compared with the prints of several suspects, including Waters, and he was excluded as the source. The evidence that Waters was innocent of this crime was in existence in 1980. It did not require the development of DNA testing 18 years later.

“I asked the retired State Police BCI Detective why he never came forward with this evidence, knowing full well that it proved that Kenny did not commit this murder. He told me he never thought to since he heard that Kenny had admitted to the murder,” said Betty Anne. It took over two decades and a civil action subpoena to produce the box of latent prints and test results that were still stored in the detective’s personal storage unit. When recovered, they proved that the Massachusetts State Police had already excluded Waters as a source of the perpetrator’s prints long before he was ever charged. It also proved that members of the Ayer Police Department were well aware of these results prior to charging him. These shocking findings helped secure a civil judgment against the town of Ayer.

The bottom line is that Waters’ trial lawyer never demanded an independent inspection of the latent prints recovered from the crime scene. Instead, he simply took the word of a police officer testifying under oath at a grand jury that no usable latent prints existed. If Waters’ attorney had demanded to inspect and test the prints, he would have discovered that they were not only usable, they exonerated his client. The so-called admissions testified to by Waters’ ex-girlfriends were later discarded by the District Attorney’s office in the face of compelling DNA evidence. This decision could have taken place two decades earlier in light of the fingerprint evidence. Without question, a jury verdict of not-guilty would have been much more probable.

To those of us in the criminal defense bar, the lessons of Kenny Waters’ conviction cannot be clearer. We simply cannot accept at face value the claims of police, state experts or for that matter, state prosecutors. (Interestingly enough, the former district attorney who tried this case, now a Massachusetts judge, later testified at deposition that she was unaware of what a latent print was). We must, without exception, separately investigate and verify all available evidence. If Kenny Waters’ original trial lawyer had done so, he probably would not have spent 18 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit.

Copyright June 2011 @ John MacDonald, Esquire


 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.