Missouri Criminal Lawyers Blog

A recent case before the U.S. Supreme Court will result in a clarification regarding rules of double jeopardy in the criminal justice system. The case involves a man, Lamar Evans, who was acquitted of burning down a vacant house after the judge presiding over his trial incorrectly required prosecutors to prove more than they had to.

The Supreme Court must now decide whether Evans can be tried again for the crime following the botched first attempt. A decision will likely have to wait until the end of June, but it could be an important one, creating an exception to what has been a steadfast rule against suspected criminals being tried twice for the same crime.

When the hearing was conducted earlier this week, the justices appeared torn over how to balance the protection afforded by the double jeopardy rule against the danger of setting guilty people free by refusing to allow prosecutors to try the case a second time.

Chief Justice John Roberts said that he always understood the rule to require that prosecutors get one fair shot to convict someone. However, he said, "It does seem to me that if they had been thrown out of court because of a legal error, it's not a fair shot." Justice Elena Kagan asked whether the defense attorney's client might have gotten a "windfall" through a wrongful acquittal. "Your client walks away the winner when he shouldn't have," she said.

In Evans' case, two officers in Detroit caught him in 2008 running with a can of gasoline away from a burning house. Investigators later found that gas had been poured across various rooms to accelerate the fire. Evans' lawyer at the time pushed for the judge to instruct prosecutors to prove that the house was a dwelling at the time of the fire, even though state law did not require such evidence. The government was unable to meet the burden of proof and the judge then said that Evans was acquitted.

The Michigan Supreme Court later ruled 4-3 that Evans should be retried because the original acquittal was based on an error of law that did not address the facts of the specific crime. Because the problem was a legal one and not a factual one, the Michigan Court said there was no double jeopardy problem.

Evans' lawyers appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying that legal errors do not prevent an acquittal from being a final ruling on a case, thus closing the door to a future second trial. Defense attorneys from around the country have voiced support for Evans' appeal saying that double jeopardy has acted as an ironclad rule for more than a century and should be upheld.

If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a St. Louis criminal defense lawyer capable of fighting for your freedom, don't hesitate to contact our St. Louis criminal law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Supreme Court weighs limit on double jeopardy rule," by Jonathan Stempel, published at Reuters.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
U.S. Supreme Court Will Consider Missouri Case About Warrantless Blood Testing
Missouri Enacts New Sentencing Guidelines

Something unexpected might show up at your doorstep the next time you feel like ordering some pizza: a police officer. According to a recent announcement by the St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch, the department has concocted a new and unusual plan to send undercover cops to deliver pizza in certain parts of St. Louis in an attempt to deter crime against the delivery people.

Fitch said that in most cases those getting the pizza will never know that a police officer is the one at their door. The officers will be undercover and will not broadcast their status unless things go wrong. The point of the program is that if someone tries to rob a driver, the officer will be able to respond with a show of force, hopefully reducing the incidents targeting pizza delivery drivers.

The new law enforcement plan was devised after the recent death of an Imo's driver who was killed last week while delivering three pizzas to a home in Dellwood. The driver was found dead in his car after being robbed of his pizzas and a cellphone.

Prosecutors have charged a teenager for the murder. Police said they found him in a house with the empty pizza boxes and the murder weapon. They also arrested three other teens and are pursuing charges against all of them in connection with the robbery and murder. The recent killing of a delivery driver was the second this year as another driver was shot and killed in May after delivering a pizza to a house in Hillsdale.

The delivery scheme has likely already begun as Fitch says undercover officers started making deliveries in parts of town where similar pizza robberies have happened in the past. The department has never tried such an approach before and is currently working with Imo's and other local pizzerias that make deliveries in central and north St. Louis. Beyond infiltrating their ranks with undercover officers, the police will also be working with pizza shops to help them train their employees about how to identify possible suspicious customers.

Currently the program has no end date in sight, it will instead continue indefinitely as the city tries to assure those working as delivery drivers that they aren't in danger. The department has said that all tips earned by officers will be turned over to the drivers whose place police took as the officers will be on the county's payroll while making the deliveries.

If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a St. Louis criminal defense lawyer capable of fighting for your freedom, don't hesitate to contact our St. Louis criminal law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Warning to would-be thieves in Missouri: pizza guy could be cop," by Kevin Murphy, published at ChicagoTribune.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Woman in St. Louis Sentenced for Armed Robberies
Recent incident shows that Missouri bank robbery doesn't pay

A man in St. Louis is now facing felony animal abuse charges after police connected him to a crime involving a dog that was shot 12 times, strangled with an electrical cord and thrown into a dumpster.

The man, Ron Jackson, was arrested earlier this week by the mayor's new Animal Cruelty Task Force (which we previously wrote about here). The crime was uncovered back in September when an employee of the city found the dog and called a rescue center given the obvious abuse it had suffered.

The dog's back legs are now paralyzed thanks to a bullet lodged near his spine, yet despite the injuries he has made a remarkable recovery The dog was given a donated cart to use so he can still walk and is currently living with the shelter's founder.

The Animal Cruelty Task Force has trumpeted the news of the arrest saying that bringing to justice the abuser of the poor dog proves that the task force is making the city safer. The recent arrest is far from the only one initiated by the task force. Numbers released indicate that the task force has averaged one arrest per week since it was created in late September.

The task force was created in large part due to an animal abuse case earlier this year that received significant media attention. The case involved Darick Dashon Stallworth mutilating, starving, and ultimately killing five dogs. After pleading guilty to three felony counts of animal abuse and two misdemeanor counts of animal neglect, Judge Margaret Neill sentenced Stallworth to four years for three felony animal abuse counts to be served concurrently and 15 days for two misdemeanor animal neglect counts to be served concurrently, really throwing the book at Stallworth for his animal abuse.

While officials say that animal abuse can be a strong indicator of other criminal behavior, it is of some concern the way that law enforcement officials broadly paint those accused of animal cruelty with a broad, criminal brush. If you or someone you care about is being investigated or has been charged with animal cruelty you will need an experienced Missouri criminal defense lawyer to protect your legal rights. Animal cruelty charges can carry serious penalties including jail time, heavy fines and a permanent criminal record.

If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a St. Louis criminal defense lawyer capable of fighting for your freedom, don't hesitate to contact our St. Louis criminal law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Man Arrested for Shooting Dog Twelve Times," published at StLouis.CBSLocal.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
St. Louis Appoints First Animal Abuse Investigator
Snooping on Farms to Report Abuse May become a Crime in Missouri

With all the coverage surrounding the recent fiasco involving General Petraeus, the extent of people's personal electronic security has been given increased attention. After all, if the CIA Director isn't able to keep his emails private, what hope is there for the rest of us? Many privacy experts agree the recent scandal has shown just how vulnerable most people are in terms of the transparency of their digital communications.

The first thing that many experts say you need to realize is that no matter what you're trying to hide, if it's in your e-mail inbox it is possible that someone will find out. If the thing you're hiding involves criminal activity, the chance of the government finding it goes up exponentially given their power to search and subpoena information. This doesn't change whether the information is contained on your hard drive or floating up in the cloud.

One thing that Petraeus discovered was that the government can easily connect you to an account by using the IP address of the computer you used to access the account. This is what proved that he and his mistress were using the otherwise anonymous account. E-mail providers like Google and Yahoo save this kind of information for 18 months, during which time it can easily be subpoenaed.

Something many people may not realize is that the Fourth Amendment requires the authorities to get a warrant from a judge to search only physical property. Rules governing e-mail searches, however, are far more lax. Under the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, a 1986 law that Congress enacted to protect your privacy in electronic communications, a warrant is not required for e-mails six months old or older. Even if e-mails are more recent, the federal government needs a search warrant only for "unopened" e-mail. Everything else, including identifying information such as the IP address used to access the account requires only a subpoena.

One complicating factor is a recent rejection of the government's approach by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The district happens to encompass many of the technology companies that handle e-mail messages and the servers that contain the data. Given the decision by the Ninth Circuit, the Department of Justice's Manual now includes a note reminding agents in the area to get a warrant before accessing such information.

Though many people might believe this kind of e-mail surveillance only happens in high profile cases, the reality is that law enforcement throws a large net when looking for incriminating information. Google reported that United States law enforcement agencies requested data for 16,281 accounts from January to June of this year, and it complied in 90 percent of cases. Online users need to realize that everything is logged and recorded somewhere. If you don't want someone else to find it, don't say it.

If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a St. Louis criminal defense lawyer capable of fighting for your freedom, don't hesitate to contact our St. Louis criminal law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Trying to Keep Your E-Mails Secret When the C.I.A. Chief Couldn't," by, published at NYTimes.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Need to record the police? There's an app for that
St. Louis police off to a violent start to the year as use-of-force increases

A recent issue before the U.S. Supreme Court involves the late appearance of evidence that could prove a criminal defendant's innocence. Though many people would assume that if evidence were to arise showing that someone was clearly innocent of the crime they were accused of committing, no matter how late in the game, that it would be allowed to be shown. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a 2009 opinion, the Supreme Court has never held that "the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent."

The High Court has agreed to hear a case that demonstrates exactly why the issue can be such a tricky one. The case involves a Michigan man, Floyd Perkins, who is serving a life sentence for murder. New evidence was uncovered and a long time passed before it was presented. The issue now is whether it can be raised or whether he should spend the rest of his life in prison for a crime he says he did not commit.

The details of the incident begin with a house party in 1993. Perkins was in attendance and left with two other men, one of whom was later found dead in the woods, having been stabbed in the head. The third man, a Mr. Jones, testified that Perkins murdered him. Perkins said he parted ways with the other two and later ran across his accuser under a streetlight covered in blood. The jury ultimately believed the accuser, voting to convict Perkins.

While behind bars Perkins worked to collect evidence demonstrating his innocence. There was an affidavit from his sister that said she heard secondhand that Jones had bragged about the killing and had taken bloody clothes to a drycleaner. This was hearsay once removed and from a relative, both of which undermined its value. A few years later Perkins got a second sworn statement from an acquaintance of Jones' who said Jones confessed to the killing and confirmed the story about the dry cleaning. Then, a few years after that an employee of the dry cleaning store said that a man who looked like Jones had indeed come in to drop off bloody pants to be cleaned.

Finally, with all the information gathered, Perkins asked a federal court to throw out his conviction in 2008. Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley of the Federal District Court in Marquette, Michigan recommended that his request be denied because it was filed too late. Perkins appealed but to no avail. Finally, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling. It ordered Judge Bell of the Federal District Court in Grand Rapids to consider whether the new evidence was credible enough to justify consideration despite Perkins missing a deadline that would have passed back in 2003.

After the Sixth Circuit decision, Michigan appealed to the Supreme Court, and with the support of 10 other states, argued that deadlines are deadlines and ought to be enforced as written. They say the legal requirement is that such claims be pursued diligently. However, Perkins argues that's exactly what he did. He filed a note with the lower court before the deadline passed explaining that many of his documents and property had been destroyed by prison personnel following a skirmish. He was subsequently denied access to the law library and placed in solitary confinement for nearly five years, making further work on his case all but impossible.

Though the evidence is suggestive, it's not a slam-dunk for Perkins. Had it been presented at trial it may have made a difference, or maybe not. The question is whether there is enough reason to justify Perkins bringing it forward now. Though Justice Scalia will likely say no, it remains to be seen how the rest of the Court will come down.

If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a St. Louis criminal defense lawyer capable of fighting for your freedom, don't hesitate to contact our St. Louis criminal law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Case Asks When New Evidence Means a New Trial," by Adam Liptak, published at NYTimes.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
U.S. Supreme Court Will Consider Missouri Case About Warrantless Blood Testing
Missouri Enacts New Sentencing Guidelines

According to a recent article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, a private program operated in St. Louis that involves allowing private companies to supervise and guide those recently arrested has some wondering about the benefits of the scheme.

Back in 2001, the Missouri Department of Corrections stopped providing supervision programs for the accused awaiting trial. In response, local jurisdictions were left on their own. Some created local programs while St. Louis took a different approach and privatized the process. Private corporations provide supervision and partner with judges who reduce the bail of those arrested thanks to the guidance.

The defendants pay for the program themselves and it is generally seen as a positive thing by judges, lawyers and even defendants who prefer ankle bracelets and drug tests to jail. However, experts question the move and say that it is very rare for private companies to take on such a typically governmental role.

Some critics point out that none of the companies providing the pre-trial services bid on the contracts, they were instead chosen without competition. Also, each order from a judge adds money directly to the pockets of the companies, something that many see as unseemly.

The companies argue that they are simply providing a service that the local and state governments can no longer offer. As for responding to charges about lack of competitive bidding, they point out that the services are free to the taxpayers and that state law only requires bidding when the cost of services exceeds certain amounts.

Other advocates of the approach point out that pre-trial supervision is a cheaper alternative to incarceration and helps diminish some of the inequities that exist in a traditional bail system, where money alone decides who goes free and who remains in jail.

However, as many defendants have come to realize, money still matters. A defendant seeking to be released must be able to afford either the original bail or the reduced bail figure in addition to the supervision costs. This has prompted some to complain about the financial strain it can cause to those already living on the brink.

Each of the three companies that provide pre-trail supervision in St. Louis charge about $30 per month for basic supervision, plus running fees for electronic house arrest or GPS monitoring. One company, Missouri Probation, charges a $60 activation fee for GPS monitoring and an additional $8.50 for each day of tracking. Payments are made directly to the companies responsible for providing the supervision. If a defendant does not abide by the terms of supervision, or does not pay, the companies can ask judges to impose further conditions or revoke bail.

The worry with the existing set-up in St. Louis is that there is a financial incentive to keep a defendant under the most restrictive conditions. This is because this private companies charge more for their GPS monitoring than they would for a more typical ankle bracelet situation. Same thing with additional fees tacked on for anger management classes and other behavioral sessions.

If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a St. Louis criminal defense lawyer capable of fighting for your freedom, don't hesitate to contact our St. Louis criminal law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "St. Louis courts add supervision to bail for better results," by Jennifer Mann, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Woman in St. Louis Sentenced for Armed Robberies
Results of St. Louis Crime Reduction Plan Revealed

News reports indicate that a St. Louis, Missouri woman, Chrice Shunta Combs, 32, was recently sentenced to a whopping 16 years in federal prison for robbing three cash advance stores in 2010.

The robberies occurred in Illinois at several locations of "The Cash Store." Combs was armed with a handgun and a knife when she robbed branches of the payday loan company over a four month time period. Beyond simply serving time, Combs was ordered to repay the $10,125 she stole from the stores.

Combs was charged and ultimately pled guilty over the summer to three counts of interference with commerce by violence in the commission of a robbery as well as one gun charge.

18 USC § 1951 is the section of federal law that deals with such crimes and it says that:

"Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

In this instance, prosecutors successfully sought both jail time and a fine. Prosecutors made their case by bringing forward employees of the stores who described the terrifying experience of being robbed at gunpoint. Some said they would never be able to forget the fear they felt and others mentioned how they worry every time a new customer walks through the door.

If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a St. Louis criminal defense lawyer capable of fighting for your freedom, don't hesitate to contact our St. Louis criminal law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "St. Louis woman gets 16 years for three robberies," by Robert Patrick, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Recent incident shows that Missouri bank robbery doesn't pay
St. Louis Appoints First Animal Abuse Investigator

For the past month or so officers across St. Louis have been engaged in a dramatic new plan to reduce crime in the city. Earlier this week the police department released data about how well it worked and the numbers indicate that there was a noticeable reduction in certain parts of the city.

Law enforcement officials released the results from a month long crime fighting plan that has been dubbed the "Homicide Deterrence Initiative." The plan was created following a period of sustained gun violence in the city. Over the summer, the police saw a huge rise in the number of aggravated assaults and felt the need to take action and bring the number of such incidents down.

The plan meant that police officers would be diverted from their usual posts, concentrating officers in certain parts of the city. It also meant that more officers were moved to the night shift, the time when many of the crimes were occurring. The plan focused resources on twelve high-crime locations over a 30-day trial period. During the initiative, 100 officers were transferred from working days to nights, 6 p.m. until 2 a.m. in the high crime areas. Police say around 50 officers will continue to work that same night shift instead of their usual dayshift to keep the momentum of the program going.

A University of Missouri-St. Louis criminology professor, Dr. Richard Rosenfeld, said that prior to the initiative crime in St. Louis was down compared to last year, but the number of aggravated assaults was up by about 15-20%. After the plan was put in place, it appears as if serious violent crimes have dropped by 68% in the designated high-crime areas when compared to the same period last year. The professor says that the data indicates aggravated assaults are still up, but now by only about eight percent.

The city has decided to give the police department an extra $250,000 to keep up a similar initiative though the exact plan has not yet been settled on. Police officials say that they will try out a few more options over the coming days before settling on an approach.

While a reduction in crime is great for everyone, we have to be aware of the costs of the recent plan. The worry is that all this extra police presence will cause officers to trample on the rights of innocent citizens in a rush to stamp out crime. If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a St. Louis criminal defense lawyer capable of fighting for your freedom, don't hesitate to contact our St. Louis criminal law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Results of 'hot spot' policing released," by Talia Kaplan, published at KSDK.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Need to record the police? There's an app for that
St. Louis Crime Lab Falls Further Behind