Missouri Criminal Lawyers Blog

As an experienced St. Louis criminal defense attorney, I have people approach me all the time and ask the question if they can shoot someone that breaks into their home or car. Until 2007 it was not an easy question to answer as any homeowner had a duty to escape the situation. With a little known change in the law the City of St. Louis has seen an increase in the number of intruders in St. Louis being gunned down by homeowners. This increase may, in part, be due to a self defense law known as the castle doctrine. Under the castle doctrine, people who encounter an intruder in their homes or vehicles or on their property are given more leeway in using deadly force. Because of the unexpected increase authorities have decided to change they way they review apparently justifiable homicide cases.

There were seven fatal shootings involving the castle doctrine in the city of St. Louis in 2011, up from two the previous year. In the past, police detectives who thought a killing was justified would contact the circuit attorney's office to make sure prosecutors were in agreement.

Captain Michael Sack, head of the homicide unit, said that, "If the victim was able to articulate that they thought their lives were in jeopardy, along with being supported by physical evidence and/or witness statements, it was deemed justifiable." Things will change going forward as every case will now be scrutinized in a more formal review by the St. Louis circuit attorney's office. "It seems to make sense to ask someone else to review our investigation and our work and see if they come to the same conclusions as we do, especially when you're talking about something as serious as taking someone's life," Sack said.

Until passage of the castle doctrine, Missouri law didn't necessarily permit killings in self-defense. Under the old law, homeowners confronted by intruders had a duty to escape their homes if they were able to do so safely. Deadly force was justified only if needed for protection from serious bodily injury or death. The castle doctrine altered the standard, allowing more leeway in using deadly force for those who encounter an intruder in their homes or vehicle or on their property.

The argument, according to one advocate of the change, is that citizens should have the right to use force to repel intruders given that anyone breaking into an occupied home must have evil intentions towards the residents. Missouri isn't alone; some 30 states have some form of a castle doctrine.

Critics of the law fear that it has encouraged vigilantism and might one day be used as cover for someone who wanted to commit premeditated murder. "We call them 'shoot-first laws,'" said Brian Malte, director of state legislation for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Shoot first, ask questions later."

The particulars of the castle doctrine and justifiable homicide cases are very complicated and require the expertise of a skilled Missouri criminal defense attorney to understand. The language of the law says that if a homeowners is put in fear of "unlawful force," he or she is permitted to use lethal force. However, the legislature failed to define "unlawful force" leaving it up to law enforcement officials and prosecutors to interpret. If you find yourself facing questions related to use of deadly force, contact our firm Sansone/Lauber today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Missouri authorities navigate castle doctrine," by Kim Bell, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Missouri DWI Defense Tactic: State Must Prove Temporal Connection Between Time Car was Driven and Intoxication
St. Louis City gets Tough on Gun Crimes by Setting High Bonds

Judges in the City of St. Louis are taking what could be a revolutionary and yet controversial step in the search for methods of preventing gun violence and early research indicates the approach might have merit. Judge John Garvey has begun setting $30,000 cash-only bonds for those individuals charged with illegal possession of a firearm, unlawful use of a weapon flourishing and other gun related charges. He started this back in May 2011 and, since then the city of St. Louis has seen a drop in the homicide cases in the city. The correlation is too weak to be deemed causal, but law enforcement officials and those on the bench seem hopeful.

The St. Louis City Chief of Police has credited the increase in bail with the 20% drop in homicides. Judge Garvey is not so sure, but the University of Chicago has been called in to study the phenomenon and to determine if the correlation between the increase in bail and the decrease in homicide are in fact causally connected.

Experienced criminal defense attorneys such as Sansone/Lauber are not happy with the judge's new policy. The purpose of bail is to ensure that the defendant is present in court and that the defendant does not pose a threat to society. It appears that Judge Garvey is using bail to deter future conduct, which goes against its purpose. Each case should be looked at on a case by case basis as people could be held in jail for an extremely long time waiting on trial due to the high bond. This could lead to innocent people prematurely entering a plea of guilty to a gun charge to get out of jail.

As criminal defense attorneys we are concerned that the results are still not well understood, highlighting that only first-time offenders are likely to be influenced by the high bail and the possibility of jail time, and these first time offenders often pose little threat. Repeat offenders and violent career criminals are not afraid of spending a little time in jail, so the range of individuals possibly affected by the new policy is narrow.

Researchers at the University of Chicago are fascinated by the possibility that increasing bail may decrease homicides. Jens Ludwig, director of the University of Chicago's Crime Lab, studies crime prevention strategies across the country. He and his team have been to St. Louis to study the effect on the increase in bail in these gun cases and he plans to return for a more thorough analysis.

Ludwig says that the effect of the increase is to provide immediate consequences for the actions of young criminal offenders. "For people who are very present-oriented, they will think, 'If the cops catch me, I'm not sleeping in my bed tonight. I'm spending the next however many days, weeks, months behind bars immediately,'... That's a fundamentally different thing from worrying about what's going to happen a year from now." Yet, this does not take into account the many gun crimes that involve people trying to protect themselves or highly emotional situations where young people don't think about the consequences of their actions. As a criminal defense attorney I would like to see more long term data to see if their is truly a connection between high bonds and drop in homicides. To present a uniform approach in all gun cases can be extreme and unfair to certain individuals.

If the results of the University of Chicago study demonstrate that there is some connection between increased bail for gun crimes and decreased homicides, the University of Chicago Crime Lab will recommend that other judges across the country implement the policy. Our criminal law firm, Sansone/Lauber, located in Clayton Missouri will be on the cutting edge of fighting back against what we think is an unfair bail strategy. Contact our St. Louis criminal defense law firm today at (314) 863-0500 if you feel that you've been a victim of such a prejudicial bail tactic.

Source: "Gun case bails rise in St. Louis, homicides drop," by Christine Byers and Jennifer Mann, published at StLouisToday.com

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Missouri's Criminal Code In Need of a Face Lift
College Students, Alcohol, and DWI

A significant change to Missouri law potentially affecting all criminal defendants and something good criminal lawyers need to keep an eye on, might be coming soon. Missouri State Senator Jack Goodman is proposing that Missouri's laws receive a complete face lift. Goodman proposed a bill to the Missouri legislature that would create a committee whose responsibility it would be to update the laws that define crime and punishment. Those laws are collectively referred to as the Missouri's criminal code (basically a collection of all the Missouri state criminal law) and it is in desperate need of an overhaul. The Missouri criminal code has not been updated since it was first drafted, over 30 years ago. Instead of spending time revising the code to keep up with the times, the Missouri legislature, located in Jefferson City, fell into the habit of adding a series of crimes and punishments over the years, creating several inconsistencies and legal conundrums along the way.

There are several examples of the code's internally inconsistent construction, including the following example noted by retired Judge Miles Sweeney in a separate report to the Missouri State Supreme Court.

• Property crime: If a thief takes $499 from another person, it is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail. If the same thief writes a forged check for $2, it is a Class C felony punishable by seven years in prison.


• Drug offenses: If a person possesses a Xanax pill, which is used treat anxiety, without a prescription, it is a Class D felony, punishable by four years in prison. If that person gives the Xanax pill to someone else, it is transferring a controlled substance, which carries a 15-year sentence.

The criminal code's revision is only one of several tasks of a working group spearheaded by Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice William Ray Price. Senator Goodman was a part of that working group, which is what prompted him to propose the new bill to the legislature. On the subject of the criminal code, the working group suggests that the Missouri Bar Association's draft of a model criminal code (created by top criminal defense lawyers) is a good place to start to begin the revisions. The Bar Association's model criminal code streamlines some of the laws and reorganizes the code to make it easier to navigate.

Missouri's prosecutors also seem to be in favor of the proposal. It would likely make their jobs easier if they had a streamlined criminal code to refer to when deciding how to charge a potential defendant. Dan Patterson, prosecutor for Green County, made it clear that he thought the review should have come a long time ago. "It really is time to do that sort of review, to go back and make sure the provisions are harmonized with one another," Patterson said.

Yet, experienced criminal defense attorneys may not agree. At our firm, Sansone/Lauber, we typically look for those inconsistencies in the Missouri Criminal Code and we exploit those inconsistencies and use them to our advantage.

Goodman's bill will provide the basis for a solid system in the Missouri legislature that focuses on keeping the criminal code up to date. Every couple of decades the committee should take a look at the laws and determine whether it is time to abolish some, amend others, and rearrange parts and sections for the sake of clarity and cohesion. The Bar Association's model draft makes a great starting point, but the committee is going to have to tailor that code to make it work for the state.

If you have any questions about Missouri Criminal Law or need to speak to an experienced Missouri criminal defense lawyer. Contact Gary J. Lauber today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Missouri's criminal code could get much-needed overhaul," by Josh Nelson, published at www.News-Leader.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

• Using Police Video of Arrest to Obtain Dismissal of Missouri One Year Revocation for Refusal to Take Breath Test


• Jefferson County Woman Charged with Illegal Possession of Prescription Medication, Case Dismissed Based on Legal and Factual Defenses

Guest Author Marina Salsbury, not affiliated with the St Louis law firm of Sansone / Lauber . Marina Salsbury planned on becoming a teacher since high school, but found her way instead into online writing after college. She writes for Online College Classes and other sites about everything from education to exercise.

Each fall parents send their children off to college with a combination of pride and worry. Aside from meeting new people, registering for classes online, and getting to know a new place, parents know their children will probably have their first experiences with alcohol at college if they haven't already, it's not something they like to focus on. Unfortunately, DWIs and college students are a very real combination.

Approximately 900,000 people are arrested for DWI each year. Of these, close to 100,000 are college students. This means 11 percent of DWI arrests across the nation are college students and approximately 12 percent of these college students will be critically injured or killed.

Aside from traffic collisions, DWI charges can have serious ramifications for students, especially those under 21 years of age:

• Students under the age of 21 can face additional charges as well as DWI if they are caught driving intoxicated.
• When given a breathalyzer test, in many states those under 21 are considered intoxicated at much lower blood alcohol levels than those of legal drinking age.
• Students under the age of 21 can face stricter penalties and stiffer fines compared to those people over 21 when charged with DWI.
• Being charged with any crime, including DWI, may be in violation of a college's code of student conduct, and penalties from the school can range from probation to expulsion.
• Aside from DWIs, alcohol-related incidents on college campuses are on the rise. Statistics for college students between the ages of 18 and 24 indicate:
• Sex: 100,000 students have reported being too intoxicated to recall whether or not they had consented to sexual intercourse. 97,000 students reported being the victims of sexual assault or rape.
• Criminal Activity: intoxicated students are frequently involved in assaults, vandalism, criminal damage, or have been involved with campus security in some manner.
• Death: 1,825 students are killed in alcohol-related incidents (not including suicide).
• Dependence: 31 percent of students can be considered abusers of alcohol while 6 percent can be considered dependent.

Students on college campuses are often away from home for the first time in their lives. Meeting new friends, partying, and other college social activities often revolve around alcohol. While many young people experiment with alcohol without any short- or long-term ill effects, there are those who do face serious consequences. DWI charges are just one of the many things that can go wrong. Students who think they can drive safely after drinking not only endanger others' lives and their own, but often find themselves on a short track to academic probation or worse.

For parents, teaching children to be responsible about alcohol and its consumption will benefit them most. Be sure to sit down with your children before they leave for college and talk about alcohol, partying, and their possible ramifications, especially when it comes to driving. By having an open and honest conversation with your children you may very well lessen their risk of becoming an alcohol-related statistic and, more importantly, you may be saving their lives.

Casey Anthony who was found not guilty of the murder of her child, Caylee Anthony, now must pay the State of Florida $217,000.00 for lying to investigators. This case captivated the nation as Casey Anthony was caught lying repeatedly about the disappearance of her 2 year old daughter. Her decomposed body was found in a swamp 6 months after her disappearance. Due to the condition of the body the medical examiner could not determine an exact cause of death. After further investigation Casey Anthony was charged with murder and 4 counts of lying to investigators. The prosecutor in the case presented a theory that Casey Anthony drugged her child with chloroform and used duct tape to suffocate her. This was presented to the jury with forensic evidence of hair found in the trunk of her car and evidence on her computer of searching for chloroform over 80 times on the internet. Throughout the trial the prosecuting attorney presented evidence of Casey Anthony lying about her daughter's disappearance. The biggest lie by Casey Anthony was that she told investigators her babysitter kidnapped her child. Yet, law enforcement was able to prove there was never a babysitter. The Defense presented the theory that Caylee Anthony drowned in the family pool and that upon her death Casey Anthony pretended nothing was wrong. The Jury in the case found Casey Anthony not guilty of murder but guilty of 4 counts of lying to law enforcement.

The prosecuting attorney and law enforcement was seeking more than $500,000.00 in for law enforcement related costs. The Judge in the case ordered Casey Anthony to pay $217,000.00 to cover the cost of investigating the case. The Judge said the costs should cover only the missing persons investigation not the murder investigation. The bill is in the form of a civil judgment.

This is a perfect example of where a person can be held responsible for lying to the police. In this case the police spent an enormous amount of time investigating leads based on the lies of Casey Anthony.

Our St Louis DWI defense law firm handles hundreds of DWI cases every year. A good percentage of our clients are either factually innocent or the police acted inappropriately and the evidence was obtained unconstitutionally. We have even had cases where our client's breath results were below the legal limit of .08 BAC, yet the police charge them anyways. Below is an example of one case of an innocent man, wrongfully arrested, and the police paid for it!

Man arrested for DUI sued the city after his arrest and settled his lawsuit against Naperville for $10,000. Local CBS DUI News Story. He claimed that he was humiliated when the city released the the defendant reportedly admitted to drinking four to five beers at a Memorial Day fest, and failed a field-sobriety test, he blew a 0.0 on the Breathalyzer test administered at the time of arrest.

His lawsuit accused Naperville police of engaging in "a pattern of false DUI arrests", particularly during the time frame between Memorial Day and the Fourth of July. With local and state revenue down, the defendant charged police with trying to boost proceeds along with recognition to the city.

The man was ultimately released without charges filed on May 30. The reason for the lawsuit focuses on his treatment as a charged defendant, with his mug shot and fingerprints taken and his embarrassment when the information was reported and printed in the newspaper.

Illinois is only one of many states cracking down on everything from minor traffic offenses to DUI offenders, in the hopes of bringing in more revenue to their respective cities and counties. Whether or not this episode was part of a planned operation to falsely accuse residents of driving while intoxicated is up for debate. However, it may behoove the infamous state of Illinois to be better stewards of their legally gained tax monies rather than involve themselves with yet another indiscretion that magnifies the corrupt goings-on's of the state.

This post is by Guest Author, Carol Montrose, who is not affiliated with our law firm and this article does not necessarily reflect the legal opinions or views of Sansone / Lauber.

Whether or not you feel you deserve a DUI, if you get pulled over and you've been drinking (even if it's only a couple of beers) there's a good chance you're going to get one. This can cause a major headache in your life (although a lot less major than if you have an accident while under the influence of alcohol) because you can lose money, your license, and even your freedom in the process, depending on the state you live in, the severity of the charges, and the judge assigned to your case. But just because you are picked up for a DUI and then convicted and sentenced in court doesn't mean you don't still have legal recourse to fight the charges. Here's how to appeal the ruling and try to get it overturned or at least aim for a lighter sentence.

1. Ask for a new trial. Did you know that you can make an immediate appeal to the judge responsible for presiding over your trial? If you feel that your case was mishandled (the evidence, in particular), leading to an unfair conviction, or if you feel that the sentencing was too harsh for your infraction (especially if you are a first-time offender) then you can ask immediately for another trial. Unfortunately, judges rarely grant such requests, so you'll probably have to take it to the next level.

2. Hire an attorney. Once you have ascertained that an appeal to a higher court is your only course of action, it's time to lawyer up. Your goal is to find an attorney who has a good track record with cases similar to yours. He or she should know the state laws backwards and forwards, including how evidence could be mishandled (providing for the crux of your case, since you won't be tried a second time, but rather your first trial will be reviewed for inconsistencies or mistakes). An experienced lawyer will also be well aware of procedures such as what paperwork to file and what deadlines to observe.

3. File immediately for appeal. You may not have much time to file for an appeal after sentencing so you need to shake a leg. In some states, you are required to file within as little as ten days, while other states may offer up to thirty days to file. The point is, you don't have much time if you want a second chance to fight your DUI charge.

4. Ask for a stay of sentencing. One thing that most people would neglect to do if not for the advice of a good lawyer is to ask for the sentence to be stayed pending appeal. This basically means that you will not have to begin carrying out your sentence until after a decision has been made regarding your appeal.

5. Seek out substance abuse education. Regardless of whether it is required by your sentence, you should enter into substance abuse education before the hearing for your appeal. In some cases, showing that you are committed to making amends for your infraction could go a long way toward getting a reduced sentence, if not winning your appeal. And frankly, if you were caught on DUI charges once, it's almost certainly not the first time you were drinking and driving. Maybe some education on the dangers of your behavior will save you from more serious charges down the road.

Carol Montrose writes for New Jersey DUI Attorney, a New Jersey DWI defense law firm.

As DWI lawyers commonly argue to a jury, it is not illegal to drink then drive, it is illegal to drive while intoxicated. So when are you legally intoxicated? How do you know? Best choice is to avoid the situation all together, but in reality, we all like to have fun and not always call a taxi or have a designated driver available. Now you can estimate your level of intoxication, to help decide if you are considered legally intoxicated, from your cell phone. The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) just put out and App for the iphone and android called "Show Me My Buzz" (Download App Here). The idea behind it is simple, enter some basic information to calculate your Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC). If you go to your market on your android phone or your app store on your iphone you will find a description of the app along with user reviews.

The App is very simple it has categories for weight, hours, beer, wine, liquor and male or female. You enter your information and it calculates your BAC along with a message depending on how high your BAC is. When you BAC gets close to the Missouri Legal limit of .08 it tells you "your buzzed" and you could be arrested for drunk driving. It can be a useful tool to help you if you have been out drinking with friends. The best part about the app is on the bottom of the page it has a button for taxi which automatically dials a taxi company.

MoDOT assistant chief engineer, Don Hillis stated "this new app is a creative way to get people talking about the subject and then finding a sober driver." Missouri is the 2nd state in the nation to make an app like this available. The important thing people need to remember is that in the state of Missouri it is illegal to operate a vehicle with a BAC above .08. See Missouri Statute 577.012, stating "A person commits the crime of "driving with excessive blood alcohol content" if such person operates a motor vehicle in this state with eight-hundredths of one percent or more [.08 BAC] by weight of alcohol in such person's blood."

If you play around with the app it becomes clear that it is easy to get to that thresh hold quickly if you are not paying attention to how much you are drinking. As an experienced Missouri DWI attorney I recommend every client of mine to have a designated driver. Also, we always suggest to our clients that they purchase an inexpensive portable BAC machine that you can pick up at your local drug store or auto parts store. These devices are accurate enough to determine if you should be driving or whether you need to leave your car and get a cab ride home.

See CBS St Louis News Article by Brett Blume, Drunk Yet? There's an App for That!

Continue reading "Missouri Department of Transportation ("MoDOT") Creates a DWI Phone App for the Residents of the "Show Me" State: "Show Me My Buzz"" »

Guest Author: Allison Gamble, Student of Psychology

Arrests and convictions for charges of driving under the influence are often made based on evidence from field sobriety tests. While law enforcement officers often contend these tests are foolproof, forensic psychology and the statistics show otherwise. In a substantial number of cases field sobriety tests tend to indicate individuals are intoxicated when their blood alcohol levels are still below legal limits. A revision of the way this testing is performed may be necessary to prevent wrongful DUI charges.

There are several types of field sobriety tests used, and none has proven infallible in peer-reviewed research. On the contrary, studies often reveal significant problems with these tests. The horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test looks for involuntary eye movements as an individual is told to look at a certain point in space. Even the US Department of Transportation states this test only accurately detects intoxicated people 88 percent of the time. A separate study performed by Maryland law enforcement officers found it was only accurate 79 percent of the time, and about one third of subjects below the legal blood alcohol limit were wrongly identified as intoxicated using this test.

Another common way to detect drunk drivers is with the walk and turn test, or a test involving standing on one foot. The Department of Transportation states these tests are about 79 percent and 83 percent accurate, respectively. However, critics of these methods point out the studies from which these statistics are derived were conducted by highly motivated officers specially trained to administer these tests, and who were being observed by civilian analysts. They point out that in actual roadside situations the detection rate could be much higher, and officers may be simply looking to make arrests, and so will tend to interpret cues in such a way that they will believe people are intoxicated, even if they legally aren't.

Some peer-reviewed studies have been even more critical of these tests. They state these tests are only accurate around two thirds of the time in detecting inebriated individuals, and often lead to false positives in assessing sober subjects. These studies found that only rarely were people who hadn't had anything to drink actually judged to be completely sober, even if officers didn't deem them "too drunk to drive."

Even field sobriety tests using breathalyzers aren't always accurate. The Department of Transportation has stated these devices accurately detect blood alcohol content about 91 percent of the time. Accordingly, all else being equal breathalyzer detections will be incorrect almost one time in ten. Moreover, depending on the skill of officers in administering other field sobriety tests and properly gauging subjects' responses, individuals could still easily be wrongly arrested for DUIs. When the only completely reliable determination of blood alcohol content is a blood test, being exonerated after the fact is impossible.

The tests currently used to evaluate sobriety in the field have unacceptably high false positive rates, and don't always detect intoxicated individuals consistently enough to be considered reliable. Often officers' own motivations, experiences, and beliefs regarding the people they're testing will lead to arrests more than testing does. Until more accurate field tests of blood alcohol levels are available, the results of these tests should always be supplemented by actual blood testing in order to absolutely prove someone has been drinking and driving.

Continue reading "Are Field Sobriety Tests Reliable in DWI Arrests? Several Studies Question FST Reliability " »

Have you ever been too drunk to drive and you realized it while you were driving and you wondered what should I do? You should pull over immediately and turn off the car, take the keys out of the ignition, and get out of the car as soon as possible. See St Louis Criminal Law Blog Article: "What Constitutes "Operating a Motor Vehicle" under Missouri DWI Law?" This is your best chance of avoiding a DWI if a police officer comes upon you. The Missouri Court of Appeals in the Western District ruled in State v Hatfield, that the State must establish the temporal connection between the defendant's last operation of a motor vehicle and his observed illegal intoxication. Basically, just because you are standing next on the side of the road and you drove does not necessarily mean that you are guilty of DWI. The State must show that you were intoxicated at the time of vehicle operation.

Specifically in the drunk driving related case of State v. Hatfield, the Cass County Sheriff's Department was dispatched to an accident and the Deputy found Billy Hatfield standing next to a car that was involved in an motor vehicle accident. The car had damage to the front end, there were ruts in a ditch next to the vehicle, and a damaged fence nearby. Billy Hatfield told the officer that "I lost it making the turn." The Deputy reported that he smelled a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, he had slurred speech and was having trouble with his balance. The Deputy placed Billy Hatfield under arrest for DWI and driving on a revoked license. Hatfield refused to take the field sobriety tests and refused to provide a breath sample. Billy Hatfield took his case to trial and was convicted of DWI. The sole witness at trial was the deputy. Billy Hatfield appealed his conviction on the basis that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of DWI because the State failed to establish that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time he was operating a motor vehicle.

To convict a person of DWI in the state of Missouri the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was (1) driving (2) while (3) intoxicated. See Missouri Revised Statute 577.010. Billy Hatfield did not dispute that he was driving or that he was intoxicated. He disputed that he was doing both of them at the same time. The state argued on appeal that there was circumstantial evidence to infer that Billy Hatfield was impaired while driving. They referred to his admission to driving and his personal appearance of slurred speech, glassy watery eyes, slight sway, odor of alcohol and a little stumbling while he walked. The Court did not believe that the State had met their burden in this case. The court stated that Hatfield's mere intoxication near his vehicle, without evidence establishing when he last operated it, is insufficient to support his conviction for DWI. The Court relied on previous cases to make it clear that the State must present evidence linking in time the defendant's intoxication to the operation of a motor vehicle. Specifically in State v. Davis, 217 S.W.3d 358, 361 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) Where intoxication is observed at a time separate from the operation of a motor vehicle, a fact-finder cannot determine that one who is under the influence of an alcoholic beverage at an established time was necessarily in that condition at some earlier unspecified moment without any evidence concerning the length of the interval involved.
For an in depth discussion see State v. Byron, 222 S.W.3d, 341 (Mo.App.W.D.2007) State v. Liebhart, 707 S.W.2d 427, 429 (Mo. App.W.D. 1986)

The Court in this case made it clear that the State failed to establish that Billy Hatfield was intoxicated when he was driving. There was no evidence as to the approximate time that Hatfield was operating the vehicle or the time of the accident occurred or how much time had elapsed between the accident and the arrest. The Court even pointed out how poorly the police officer investigated the case. The Court finished their opinion with strong words for the state by stating "it is the obligation of the State to prove a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not the function of the court to ignore its failure." See State v. Wilson.

Continue reading "Missouri DWI Defense Tactic: State Must Prove Temporal Connection Between Time Car was Driven and Intoxication" »

As a St Louis criminal defense lawyer, one of the first issues our clients need us to deal with is getting a low or at least a reasonable bond set so they can get out of jail while the case is going through the court system, as we are all innocent until proven guilty. Recently, Judge John Garvey and Judge Barbara Peebles in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis have made a point in setting high bonds for defendants charged with gun crimes in the city of St. Louis. Typically in the past a person arrested on a gun charge such as Unlawful Use of a Weapon or Unlawfully Carrying a Concealed Weapon (CCW), Unlawful Use of a Weapon, Flourishing or other gun related charges were able to get a bond set that was reasonable. Most of the time they were able to get a 10% bond which means that if the Judge sets the bond at $30,000.00 10% then they would only have to post $3,000.00 in cash to be released.

Judge Garvey and other Judges in the City have a made a point to set the bonds higher without allowing a 10% to be posted. This means that many defendants charged with a gun crime are seeing bonds set at $50,000.00 or even as high as $75,000.00 cash only. When asked for a reason the Judges have pointed out, that based on their own perception, gun violence is increasing and they cite examples of innocent bystanders being shot in the last couple of months.

Bonds are typically set to insure that the defendant will appear in court and to ensure that the public can be protected. Each case should be looked individually to determine if a high bond is necessary. This new policy has raised some concern from the City's lead Public Defender, Mary Fox. She pointed out that State law says Judges must weigh the nature and circumstances of the charge and a criminal's background before a bond is set.

Recently a case was taken up to the Supreme Court of Missouri challenging the new bonds being set by Judge Garvey. Specifically, a Defendant was released on a bond of $15,000.00 for a gun charge while he was waiting for a grand jury indictment. Upon the grand jury indictment Judge Garvey raised the bail to $75,000.00 cash only. The case was sent up to the Supreme Court for review as the defense attorney argued that the bond increase was unfair. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case. As it stands now the City of St. Louis will continue to issue high bonds in gun cases making it very difficult for defendants to make the bond resulting in many people sitting in jail awaiting the outcome of their case.

Although the purpose of the higher bonds is to discourage people from committing gun crimes it most likely will create other problems. The city jail will become over crowded with people waiting on trials. People with no criminal history may end up getting treated the same way as a person with multiple felonies on their criminal history. Even people who are innocent may enter a plea of guilty so that they can be released. It remains to be seen if this policy will have a long lasting effect on gun crimes in the St. Louis Area.

If you have been arrested for a gun crime call St Louis law firm Sansone / Lauber today for a free consultation.

Post Dispatch Article: St. Louis judges say higher bonds may help curb gun violence

GUEST AUTHOR ARTICLE: not affiliated with St Louis law firm of Sansone / Lauber:

If you have been unfortunate enough to be caught and arrested for drunk driving, you must be weighing the pros and cons of hiring a DUI lawyer. Some people think that they do not need to hire a lawyer and they can represent themselves in court. Others think it is not a good idea to spend thousands of dollars on hiring a lawyer when they will eventually have to pay court fee and other DUI fines if they are proven guilty. However, as a first time DUI convict, you must understand that hiring a DUI lawyer to represent you in court should be your first priority. This is because as a layman, you will be unaware of how to deal with the situation in court and you will also not be aware of the local DUI laws, and what actions you must take to defend yourself. If you do not get professional consult, then you must prepare yourself to face the consequences of a DUI conviction, which can be severe in most states and will haunt you for the rest of your life, not to mention, leaving a permanent criminal mark on your record. So before you make the decision of whether or not to hire a DUI lawyer, you must ask some questions to yourself:

Are you aware of your Rights?

As a citizen of the state, you must be aware of your rights and the officer on duty who arrested you should tell you about your rights at the time of arrest. You may also not be sure whether you can refuse a breath test and other field sobriety tests, if the police officer asks you to take them. If you are not aware of your rights, and in the case you are arrested, you may be taken advantage of.

Are you aware of the local DUI laws?

You may also not be aware of the local laws and what you need to do in order to get your driving license back if it is suspended. The local laws include penalties and fines which will be imposed on you if you are proven guilty and the consequences also include spending time in jail, probation or serving community service hours, installation of an ignition interlock device and so on.

An experienced lawyer at you side can make a big difference by fighting for you at every step of the way. Your lawyer will take every possible measure to make sure that the charges against you are reduced as much as possible if not removed completely. They will also make sure that the fines are reduced and if the court orders any punishment, it is also minimized.

However, if you do not have a lawyer at your side, you will not be sure how to go about handling your case. You will not be aware of the deadlines which you have to meet in order to save your driving privileges. Similarly, you will not know what actions of the police officer on duty can be questioned in court and used in your favour.

Author Bio

Richard Jacobs is a chief editor since early 2007, and he currently works for MyDUIattorney. A website that helps you to find the right DUI lawyer, you can search for a Maryland DUI Attorney, and Arizona DUI Lawyer online, anytime! Top St Louis Missouri DWI Lawyer

Many years spent as both a St Louis prosecutor and now as a Missouri criminal defense lawyer, I have seen over aggressive law enforcement tactics which sometimes amount to entrapment or prosecutions without sufficient evidence but the cases are pursued anyway due to the nature of the crime. This is especially true in sexual assault cases. See St Louis Criminal Law Article: "St Louis Felony Rape Charges Dismissed Day before Trial" A case our St Louis defense law firm handled and had dismissed a few days before trial.

Recently, this type of overly aggressive prosecution resulted in an acquittal of a widely watched sexual case. In 2006 twenty nine men were prosecuted as a result of the Dateline show "To Catch a Predator". Only one, Joseph Roisman, took his case to trial, and he won. The show was based on volunteers from the online watchdog Perverted Justice who would contact individuals in chat rooms and steer the conversations towards sex. Eventually they would claim to be underage and set up a meeting. Roisman talked to a "tori_Rox_2006" who identified herself as a thirteen year old girl and he agreed to meet her. Roisman traveled 110 miles to meet the girl and when he arrived he took off his shirt as he entered the backyard of the residence. He was then confronted by the Petalum Police and arrested for attempting lewd acts with a child under the age of 13.

The Judge in the case entered an acquittal of the Defendant in the case after the prosecuting attorney presented their case. The Judge found that the prosecutors had not proven that Roisman had specific intent to commit the crime in question. He went on further to suggest that dateline's partner, Perverted Justice, lacked credibility and and engaged in entrapment. After the jurors were dismissed, they even commented that they believed Perverted Justice had an agenda and one juror said she would have found him not guilty even if the Judge did not stop the case.

This is a perfect example of entrapment. The media and law enforcement failed to show that Joseph Roisman ever intended to commit a crime. They had nothing more that some inappropriate internet conversations that did not show his intent to commit crime. The criminal defense attorney in this case aggressively defended his client and was able to show that no crime occurred. The media assumed that a Judge and jury would see the video and just assume that the person intended to commit a crime.

In Missouri, entrapment is defined in Missouri Code - § 562.066. -- Entrapment.

"1. The commission of acts which would otherwise constitute an offense is not criminal if the actor engaged in the prescribed conduct because he was entrapped by a law enforcement officer or a person acting in cooperation with such an officer.

2. An "entrapment" is perpetuated if a law enforcement officer or a person acting in cooperation with such an officer, for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the commission of an offense, solicits, encourages or otherwise induces another person to engage in conduct when he was not ready and willing to engage in such conduct."

Have you been targeted by the police or feel you have been charged for a crime you did not commit. Contact Clayton criminal defense lawyer Gary Lauber for a free legal consultation.

As a St Louis attorney that handles DWI cases on a daily basis, I am constantly asked questions by clients, friends and family about how to avoid a DWI arrest. They all seem to think that if they have had too much to drink,and they realize it while they are driving that they should pull over and sleep it off, a situation I see often in my criminal law practice. In theory this seems to make sense except that most people forget one important thing, turn off the car and remove the keys from the ignition!. In Missouri, "A person commits the crime of 'driving while intoxicated' if he operates a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated or drugged condition. See Missouri Revised Statute 577.010.1

"Operates" is defined by statute as "physically driving or operating a motor vehicle." Missouri Revised Statute 577.001.2. If the keys are in the ignition and the car is running you are operating a motor vehicle. The Missouri Court of Appeals confirmed this again in State v. Wilson (full opinion here) a decision recently handed down on July 12, 2011.

Prior to a DWI arrest, in May 2009, Barbara Lehmen saw a truck pull up in front of her house in Gasconade County Missouri. She observed a person inside the truck moving around but was unable to see who it was. The police arrived about 30 minutes later. The chief of police walked up to the truck and saw James Wilson reclined in the driver's seat of the truck asleep. Wilson's speech was slurred and he appeared to be disoriented and the police officer reached in and turned off the engine, as the truck was still running. The police ten reported that Wilson was unsteady on his feet, swaying and stumbling. He submitted to a breath sample and blew a BAC of 0.273%. At his criminal DWI trial, James Wilson was found guilty, his criminal defense attorney appealed the guilty verdict arguing that there was insufficient evidence to prove he was operating the vehicle as required by sections 577.001 and 577.010 of the Missouri Revised Statutes.

James Wilson's main argument is that the evidence did not show he was physically driving or operating a motor vehicle and that he was just sleeping in a parked truck. The Court disagreed relying on Cox v. Director of Revenue, 98 S.W.3d 548, 550-551 (Mo. Banc 2003). In that drunk driving case the police had probable cause to believe that the Defendant was operating his vehicle where the Defendant was found sleeping in the driver's seat of his car with the keys in the ignition and the engine was running. In the Wilson case, the Court went a step further and stated that the evidence was strong enough to infer that James Wilson drove there drunk as only 30 minutes had passed since he pulled up and the fact that he was incoherent and blew a 0.273% BAC. See State v. Johnston, 670 S.W.2d 552, 557 (Mo.App.S.D. 1984); See State v. Varnell, 316 S.W.3d 510, 518 (Mo.App.W.D. 2010).

The Courts confirmed the State of Missouri's position that if you are in the car and the keys are in the ignition and the car is running you can be convicted of DWI. So, if you find yourself int he position of driving home and realizing you drank too much, pull over, take the keys out of the ignition, and to be even more safe, get out of the drivers seat and sleep it off in the back seat or call someone for a ride.

Continue reading "Asleep at the Wheel: What Constitutes "Operating a Motor Vehicle" under Missouri DWI Law? " »

Our Clayton DWI lawyers applaud the fact that now most St Louis area county courts incorporate the use of alternative forms of punishment for DWI Offenders. Recently, Jefferson County Circuit Court, which is located in Hillsboro Missouri and just south of St. Louis County, was selected to take part in a NHTSA study to determine the best way to use SCRAM devices on repeat DWI offenders. Article: Jefferson County DWI Study

SCRAM (Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring) is an ankle bracelet that is worn by a DWI offender for several months. The braclet monitors the offender's alcohol level 24 hours a day seven days a week; if the repeat DWI offender takes a drink the body sweats the alcohol out through the skin and the braclet will be alerted. The devices are considered to be tamper proof and extremely accurate.

The courts see this device as a safeguard against repeat DWI offenders and as a guarantee that the repeat DUI offender is not drinking. Our Jefferson County DWI attorneys use SCRAM as an alternative to Jail for felony DWI clients in Jefferson County DWI cases.

A few years back, I represented a St Charles man charged with his 2nd Felony DWI, which is a Class C Felony. We got him released with a very low bond but with the condition suggested by our st Louis DUI attorney, Ben Sansone, that SCRAM be used as part of the bond. This worked out great, our client was able to get out on a cheap bond, but more importantly, he wore the SCRAM for a year before trial and it never went off, not once. This showed the court he was serious about kicking his habits and the court allowed probation and NO jail time for a second time Felony offender. This was a great outcome for our client.

Continue reading "Jefferson County Circuit Court takes part in NHTSA Study" »