Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in criminal trials

Brockton, Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer comments on recent decision involving Miranda warnings from the Florida Supreme Court.

January 1, 2011 | by Michael DelSignore

As a Brockton Criminal defense lawyer, a recent case from the Florida Supreme Court raises significant issues regarding when and how police must provide Miranda warnings under the Constitution. The case of Ross v. State, is a case where the defendant was convicted of first degree murder of his parents and sentenced to death. A key component of the State’s evidence was the defendant’s confession to the murder. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial holding that the police violated the defendant’s rights under Miranda by not providing him Miranda warnings until after he made a confession; the defendant was then given Miranda warnings and again made inculpatory statements. The State of Florida has filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court in order to attempt to reverse the decision of the Florida Supreme Court and uphold the jury verdict. The filings in the Ross case can be found on the Scotusblog.

As a Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer, the Ross decision is noteworthy in several respects. The court found the defendant first inculpatory statement custodial applying the test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Yarborough v. Alvardo, 541 U.S. 652 (2004) where the court looks to the circumstances surrounding the interrogation and whether a reasonable person would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.

In a Massachusetts criminal case involving an issue of a custodial interrogation, the court would apply the factors set forth in the case of Commonwealth v. Bryant, 390 Mass. 729 (1984).

1. the place of the interrogation
2. Whether the investigation has begun to focus on the suspect 3. The nature of the interrogation whether it was aggressive or, instead, informal and influenced in its contours by the suspect; and
4. whether, at the time the incriminating statement was made, the suspect was free to end the interview by leaving the locus of the interrogation as evidenced by whether the interview ended with the arrest of the defendant.

The Florida court applied a similar test and found that all of the factors favored a custodial interrogation in that the defendant had to endure a long interrogation where he was confronted with evidence of his guilt in a highly confrontational manner without having the benefit of Miranda warnings prior to his confession.

After obtaining an incriminatory statement, the defendant was provided Miranda warning and subsequently made a second incriminatory statement. To determine whether this statement was admissible the Florida Supreme Court applied the case of Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985) and Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004), both from the United States Supreme Court.

The Elstad case addresses the issue of a statement prior to Miranda warnings followed by the police providing the warnings and then the defendant making a second incriminatory statement and would allow the second statement into evidence if a careful and thorough administration of the Miranda warnings is given and the rights are waived. This rule of allowing a late administration of the Miranda warning to be cured applies only if the police do not intentionally delay providing Miranda warnings to obtain an incriminatory statement. The Florida court found it significant in its analysis that the police downplayed the importance of the Miranda warnings in order to compel the defendant to repeat his earlier confession. The Florida Supreme Court concluded that the later statements could not be admitted into evidence because the delay in giving the Miranda warnings was designed by the police and the police downplayed the significance of the warnings once given.
Continue Reading ›

Forensic science plays role in few Massachusetts criminal cases

November 16, 2010 | by Michael DelSignore

The Boston Globe recently published an excellent report on the impact television forensic shows, such as CSI, have in the real-world courtroom.

In reality, a Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer can frequently challenge the available evidence in many crimes — it is the defendant’s statements that are much more likely to be a problem. Television is Hollywood and real life isn’t. The vast majority of cases do not have DNA evidence, which is expensive and time consuming. Other “forensics” seen on television might be available to the CIA (and we only say might), but is not going to be used by Massachusetts law enforcement anytime soon. For instance, detectives are not going to determine what type of motorcycle a defendant was using during a robbery by matching the sound of its exhaust caught on surveillance video — which was an actual episode of a popular television forensics show.

In fact, the popularity of such shows can cause problems in a trial — particularly when jurors think such evidence should be available if prosecutors or the defense just used a little more effort. A 2006 study of 1,000 Michigan jurors found that nearly half expected to see some form of scientific evidence in every criminal case. Nearly 75 percent expected to see it in murder trials. Of even greater concern, is that people trusted such evidence almost blindly; a study of 1,201 California jurors found scientific evidence such as DNA or fingerprints, was considered far more reliable than testimony from police officers, witnesses or the victims themselves.

So it goes without saying that it is critical to select a Massachusetts defense attorney who has the knowledge and experience to challenge all manner of forensic evidence while convincing a jury of its relative value.

Meanwhile, a new study of 400 murder cases found that the presence of forensic evidence had very little impact on whether an arrest was made, charges were filed, or a conviction was handed down in court. Just 13.5 percent of murder cases had physical evidence linking the murderer to the crime scene or the victim. If you are a defendant without an experienced and aggressive defense lawyer, that is a truly frightening statistic. In other words, the state wants you to believe that more than 85 percent of murder defendants are guilty because prosecutors say so.

According to the research, biological evidence was found 38 percent of the time, fingerprints 28 percent of the time, and DNA in just 4.5 percent of homicides. Research yet to be released shows that forensic evidence also plays a minimal role in other types of crimes, including robbery and burglary. Forensic evidence is collected in less than a third of such cases and is submitted to the lab just a small fraction of the time.

Meanwhile, the National Academy of Sciences is questioning whether certain methods used in forensics are even scientific and is decrying the lack of standards and certification. Problems are commonplace: In 2008, Detroit shut its crime lab after an audit found a 10 percent error in ballistics testing; New York State Police have come under fire for overlooking evidence that a crime lab was fabricating data; and a San Francisco crime lab was closed after it was revealed that an analyst was allegedly skimming illegal drugs for personnel use.

Massachusetts hasn’t escaped problems. In 2007, the Executive Office of Public Safety found a backlog of more than 16,000 cases awaiting DNA testing. In fact, DNA backlog is a nationwide problem that has cost $330 million since 2004 and is one of the primary reasons an individual case is unlikely to be tested.
Continue Reading ›

Judge denies right to public trial resulting in Massachusetts Appeals Court overturning conviction

August 31, 2010 | by Michael DelSignore

The Massachusetts Court of Appeals vacated a conviction in the case of Commonwealth v. Wolcott when the defendant was denied her right to a public trial as a result of the trial judge closing the courtroom. The Wolcott decision is an important decision as it emphasizes that Massachusetts criminal defense lawyers should object any time a judge closes the courtroom or denies access to a courtroom during any part of a trial. Additionally, the court’s decision invalidates the practice of some judge in Massachusetts criminal trials closing the courtroom during jury selection, limiting access during closing statements and jury instructions.

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a public trial. In the Wolcott case, defense counsel sought access for members of the public during jury selection. The judge denied that request stating that as space became available the public could take those seats. The defense counsel moved for a mistrial which was denied by the trial judge. The court found that the trial judge did not announce that when space became available that members of the public could enter the courtroom. The judge refused to allow members of the public into the courtroom and court officers asked members of the public to leave the courtroom without notifying members of the public that as space became available they could reenter the courtroom. Accordingly, the Appeals Court found that the judge closed the courtroom.

The Massachusetts Appeals court reviewed the case of Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984), from the United States Supreme Court addressing when a full closure of the courtroom can be justified under the United States Constitution. The Waller Court used a four part analysis:

1. The party seeking to close the court must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced.
2. The closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest;
3. The trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding;
4. the court must make adequate findings to support closure of the courtroom.

The United States Supreme Court recently addressed the issue of public trials in the case of Presley v. Georgia, 130 S.Ct. 721 (2010), where the court underscored that the right to a public trial is rooted in both the Sixth Amendment and is also guaranteed by the First Amendment. In Presley, the Court was also faced with a judge that denied the public access during jury selection and found that the judge did not consider whether there were reasonable alternatives to closing the court during jury selection. In applying the Presley case, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals found that the jury verdict had to be set aside based on the failure to provide the defendant a public trial and held that because the violation is a structural error, that the court would not apply harmless error analysis, but would vacate the conviction, providing the defendant with a new trial.
Continue Reading ›

President Obama criticizes United States Supreme Court prompting response from Chief Justice

March 13, 2010 | by Michael DelSignore

The Obama Administration is taking heat from Republican senators and the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court for remarks the President made during the State of the Union, which were critical of a recent Supreme Court decision regarding campaign finance reform.

The independence of the court is little debated and often taken for granted. But an independent court is vital to democracy and has a far-reaching impact, from national debate over abortion and gun control to future cases the court might hear regarding Massachusetts criminal defense.

The judicial branch must operate independently of the executive branch (White House) and the legislative branch (Congress), which is the primary reason why Supreme Court Justices are appointed to the bench for life.

FOX News is reporting that two senators (with no apparent acknowledgment of the irony of the legislative branch now becoming involved with court affairs) have called on Obama to stop criticizing the court. Chief Justice John Roberts took umbrage at the President’s criticism during his State of the Union address.

Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch said he agreed with Roberts, who also said it was “very troubling” that the annual speech has “degenerated into a political pep rally.”

“But the president was wrong on the law, he was wrong on the facts and I thought it was unseemly for him to criticize the Supreme Court while they’re sitting there … they’re a separate branch of government. They’re not there to be lectured to by the president of the United States.”

During the speech, at which six of the justices were in attendance, Obama criticized a 5-4 January decision that found government limits on corporate funded, independent political broadcasts during elections constitute a violation of free speech rights.

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, also chimed in to voice his criticism.

“I was disappointed and dismayed to hear the president of the United States mischaracterize the decision of the Supreme Court and scold the members of the court in his State of the Union address for something they didn’t do,” Sessions said.

Chief Justice Roberts, speaking on Tuesday at the University of Alabama, questioned whether justices should attend the address.

“To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I’m not sure why we’re there,” said Roberts, who was nominated to the court by President George W. Bush and approved by the Senate in 2005.

Roberts said anyone is free to criticize the court and that some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs stood by the President’s comments, saying the flood of corporate money is drowning out the voice of average Americans.

“The president has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government,” Gibbs said. “That is why he spoke out to condemn the decision and is working with Congress on a legislative response.”

The Washinton Post said the issue may be resonating with voters after 1,500 comments were posted on its website.

The Wall Street Journal said the incident may be the most overt criticism of the court by a sitting President since Franklin Roosevelt engaged in an epic battle with the court over New Deal initiatives.
Continue Reading ›