Criminal Lawyer, David Michael Cantor, spoke to a group of law students at The Phoenix School of Law on Thursday, April 8, 2010. Cantor spoke to students about the case stages of a criminal defense case, which included Misdemeanor Adult Stages, Felony Adult Stages and Juvenile Case Stages.
The Advantage of a White Collar Attorney in Arizona. Article from DM Cantor.
Arizona Drug Possession Lawyer and the Legal Classification System for Methamphetamines. Article from DM Cantor.
Clients of an Arizona Drug Crimes Lawyer Can Benefit from Drug Rehabilitation Counseling. Article from DM Cantor.
Any Lawyer for Drunk Driving Should Look at the Impacts of Herring v United States on DUI Defense. Article from DM Cantor.
REDUCED | FRAUD SCHEMES/THEFT – Mr. M was charged with ten counts of Class 2 Felony Fraud Schemes (i.e., Mortgage Fraud). The State had alleged that Mr. M was a loan officer who issued fraudulent loans to either unknowing adults or minor children which resulted in a total loss of $1,500,000.00. We ultimately resolved his case with a plea agreement to a single count of Class 4 Felony Forgery, which involved four years of probation, $9,999.99 of restitution (i.e., below $10,000.00, thereby avoiding any deportation issues), and two months of jail with work release.
Maricopa County Superior Court No CR2005-011595
REDUCED | SECURITIES FRAUD / THEFT – Mr. R was a prominent estate planning attorney in Scottsdale who was charged with 103 Felony counts ranging from Sale of Unlicensed Securities, to Fraud Schemes and Theft. Mr. R was an unwitting partner to a concert promoter who was selling investment contracts with a high rate of return. Mr. R invested his own money, his family’s money, and assisted in many of his clients investing their money with the promoter. Eventually, the promoter stole $25,000,000.00 and absconded. We were able to demonstrate that Mr. R was also a victim, who should not be treated as a co-conspirator (due to the fact that he also lost large sums of money). Ultimately, his case was resolved with four counts of a Class 6 Open Felony for Solicitation of Sale of Unregistered Securities. On the day of sentencing the judge designated all 4 felony counts as outright misdemeanors, and placed Mr. R on what became unsupervised probation with a low level of restitution. No jail time was involved.
Maricopa County Superior Court No CR2008-006750
DISMISSED | MORTGAGE FRAUD – Ms. V. was employed as an escrow officer in Phoenix and was charged with 37 Felony counts, including Wire Fraud, Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering, Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, and Engaging in Illegal Monetary Transactions Greater than $10,000.00. While she was an escrow officer she submitted to lenders several preliminary HUD-1 forms, also known as “Pre-audit” and final HUD-1 forms. Other defendants and their family members were buyers (or the backers of “straw buyers”) of several homes (27 total) where Ms. V. was the escrow agent. The alleged “cash back scheme” stemmed from these HUD-1 forms Ms. V. drafted that resulted in large sums of unearned/undeserved monies to be distributed to the buyer. The charges against Ms. V. and the other Defendants arose from these illegal pay-outs. Per the Assistant United States Attorney, the range of loss was between $2,500,000.00 and $7,000,000.00. Ms. V. was unwittingly duped into submitting these HUD-1 forms without knowing illegal kickbacks were taking place. Her charges were ultimately dismissed in full.
Any DUI attorney worth his legal fees will know how Melendez vs. Massachusetts impacts DUI defense. The defendant was charged with possessing and trafficking cocaine, evidenced by several bags that the prosecution held as evidence. The defense had 3 certificates of analysis that said the mentioned evidence was cocaine. The defense argued against the inclusion of the evidence, as its validation came through certificates and not a presentable witness who could be cross examined, as a DUI attorney might cross examine an arresting office in a DUI case.
The objections were overruled. The issue was whether the Crawford case applied in the Melendez case and whether the affidavits would be testimonial and whether the defendant had the right to cross examine this testimony under the 6th amendment. The court ruled that affidavits were testimonial statements, and that analysts served as witnesses under the 6th amendment. These analysts could therefore be cross examined by a DUI attorney.
More specifically, the Melendez case does illustrate that there are better ways for a DUI attorney to challenge or verify the results of a scientific test, as the Constitution guarantees only a single way- that of confrontation. A DUI attorney still does not have the right to suspend the Confrontation Clause when a preferable trial strategy is available. In this regard, the court rebuffed the state’s claim that scientific testing is both “neutral” and “reliable.”
As any DUI attorney knows, forensic science is not free from manipulation. It shouldn’t be taken at face value. In the issue of a DUI case, the level of intoxication forms the crux of the trial. This evidence needs to be based on more than police officer testimony, but other factors such as breathalyzer and performance of sobriety tests. A DUI attorney has the duty to question all available evidence in a court of law in the interest of his or her client.
Confrontation is designed to weed out not only fraudulent testimonial evidence, but incompetent evidence as well. The Melendez decision rejects the notion that the documents in question qualified as traditional official or business records. The court decided that by requiring testimonial evidence to substantiate the scientific determinations that “the sky won’t fall.”
A DUI attorney knows how the Melendez case makes it clear that the operator of the state’s chemical test is a necessary witness. However, the court does not make people who routinely work and maintain the lab equipment expert witnesses. The court does not need to hear the testimony of anyone who tested the sample or the testing equipment.
In the case of DUI law, the testimony of the acting police officer is often all a DUI attorney has to work with. When it becomes a matter of one word against the other, a conviction becomes that much more difficult. Police testimony can be called into question if not backed up by empirical evidence such as a Breathalyzer.
A good DUI attorney will know how to use the conclusions of the Melendez case to question key evidence in a DUI trial. Put your rights first by knowing how the court has decided in the past.
Any criminal lawyer will tell you that the ineffective assistance of trial counsel is one of the most frequently raised claims in state and federal post conviction petitions. Considering the state of most state funded counseling these days, this is hardly surprising. Many state attorneys refuse to investigate their cases before trial, never meet with their clients before the trial, or fail to file any motions or object to inadmissible evidence during the trial. The circumstances of your case come down to the quality of your criminal lawyer. Choosing one may be the most important legal decision you make.
The American Bar Association released a recent conclusion that indigent defense in this country has reached a state of crisis. Many defenders are forced to handle well over a thousand cases a year, more than 3 times the ABA says a criminal lawyer can adequately handle. In this challenging tax economy, public defenders in many communities simply don’t have the funds to give their clients the adequate defense the Constitution demands.
Added to this burden, the very structure of our state and federal post conviction review systems further contributes to the problem instead of providing a solution. Procedural efforts to review it make it difficult for defendants to challenge the effectiveness of their criminal lawyer. As a result, there is really no way of prosecuting criminal lawyer incompetence, which leads to a system of unaccountability on the part of a community funded criminal lawyer.
Problems with State Post Conviction Review Procedures
Many states require defendants challenging the ineffective assistance of their trail counsel must do so through post conviction review, rather than on direct appeal. Most states limit direct appeal to statements and actions directly reflected by the trial record. Because proving ineffective assistance of trial counsel often depends upon a criminal lawyer and his or her failure to do something, the legal proceedings need to take in more than just the direct appeal.
Defense attorneys are given very short time windows to file such motions (often in as little as 30 days), so the defense they get to represent them is often the same one who is the subject of the motion, which creates a conflict of interest. It is very difficult to make a case in such the limited time period allowed.
Clients also have difficulty making legal claims asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel because they have no Constitutional right to counsel on post conviction review. A client who must then represent himself during a post conviction review has to blindly deal with filing deadlines, substantiating evidence and prosecuting the case, which is beyond the capabilities of most of the accused.
The value of a quality criminal lawyer
The solution is to be represented by a reputable criminal lawyer from the beginning. While state funded lawyers may fulfill the state’s need to provide legal counsel, it is far from adequate legal counsel. If you need a criminal lawyer, any investment you can make in your case is worth the effort. A good lawyer can create a much more beneficial outcome that will make post conviction review completely irrelevant.
Money for quality legal advice is money that is well spent. When considering your future, get the best criminal lawyer you can afford, even if it means taking out a loan or other investment to fund the means.