Missouri Criminal Lawyers Blog

It's been several decades since the last update was done to Missouri's criminal statutes but it looks like the public won't have to wait much longer for changes to be implemented. A substantial overhaul of the state's existing criminal justice system is planned by legislators who recently floated a new bill before the General Assembly that would make several important changes.

The bill currently before members of the Missouri House was drafted with significant input from a committee that had been formed years ago by the Missouri Bar to study the state's existing laws and recommend much needed changes.

The committee spent four years batting around ideas and coming up with the final draft language that has just been released to legislators and the public alike. The committee spent time combing through the state's statutes, recommending changes and tweaks as the case may be. Changes were proposed to a wide variety of individual offenses, ranging from littering to domestic assaults.

One of the biggest changes contained in the legislation, known as House Bill No. 210, is the addition of a new class of felony. Currently, Missouri Revised Statutes 557.016 lists four classes of felonies in Missouri: A, B, C and D. The new legislation would add a fifth, Class E, to the list. The goal is to close some of the currently large gaps in the existing four categories. A good example of the problem is found in Missouri Revised Statutes 558.011 which says Class C felonies carry a maximum prison term of seven years, while class B felonies come with between five and 15 years behind bars. To help make the transition between these felony gradations less jarring, the bill proposes creating a Class E which would allow for a better distribution of sentencing times.

Class E felonies would require a prison term not to exceed four years. This would mean that Class C would change to a term of between three and ten years while Class D felonies would not exceed seven years in prison. Additionally, misdemeanors would also be given a new category, Class D, for similar gap-closing reasons.

Though there were many changes contained in the new legislation, it did not contain all of the recommendations of the committee formed by the Missouri Bar to study the criminal code. One suggestion that the committee agreed should be included in the legislation, but which was ultimately left out is that those arrested for first time possession of marijuana should only be subject to a fine.

This would change existing state law which allows for the possibility of jail time. The committee hoped that such a change would reduce the heavy burden on state jails by directing such low risk criminals away from the penal system and instead subjecting them only to fines. It would also help alleviate pressure on the overstretched public defender system given that individuals not facing jail time would no longer be entitled to a public defender's help. Sadly, the existing laws will stay in place which means that those arrested for first time marijuana possession in Missouri will be charged with a Class A misdemeanor, a crime which is punishable with up to a year in jail.

If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a Missouri criminal defense lawyer capable of aggressively protecting your interests, contact our St. Louis criminal defense law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Missouri's Criminal Code May Soon See New Class of Felony, Misdemeanor," by Jennifer Davidson, published at KSMU.org.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
St. Louis police off to a violent start to the year as use-of-force increases
St. Louis City Judges Raise Bail in Gun Cases and St. Louis City Homicides Drop

One St. Louis man now finds himself behind bars after a bizarre robbery involving a Spider-Man mask and a Domino's pizza delivery guy. According to St. Louis County Police, the 31-year-old donned the comic book hero's mask while robbing a pizza delivery driver at gunpoint late one night this weekend.

The man, Richard D. Whitehead, was charged with first-degree robbery and armed criminal action. Police tracked the man fairly easily given that the robbery occurred at his home. It doesn't seem as if he'll be out on the street soon either given that bail was set at a whopping $100,000.

A spokesperson for the police department said that Whitehead wore the mask and pointed a semiautomatic handgun at the driver late at night on Friday. He then took not only the small amount of money the driver was carrying, but apparently was a little hungry, also ran off with two pizzas. Thankfully the driver was unharmed in the robbery but this doesn't mean Whitehead won't still be facing serious criminal penalties.

Under Missouri law, a conviction for armed criminal action carries a prison term of not less than three years. Robbery in the first degree is a Class A felony in Missouri, and carries with it a term of imprisonment that can range from 10 to 30 years. A person commits robbery in the first degree when he or she forcibly steals property from another and either causes serious physical injury to any person or possesses, uses, displays or threatens the use of a dangerous or deadly weapon. That's exactly what the prosecutors will be arguing when Whitehead's case goes before a judge.

Oddly, given what we discussed in another recent post discussed involving pizza delivery drivers and the police, this robbery has no connection with a recent approach by the St. Louis County Police Department to fight crime. The police department revealed that some undercover officers might begin delivering pizzas after the killings of two pizza delivery drivers. The plan was devised after a driver for Imo's was killed on November 5 while delivering pizzas in Dellwood. Back in May another one of Imo's drivers was killed while delivery a pizza in Hillsdale, just a few miles away from the scene of the other killing. Though the most recent arrest did not result from the use of undercover officers, the department has been clear that they are willing to work with whatever companies request their help, not just those at Imo's.

A robbery charge along with an armed criminal action charge should be taken seriously given the consequences of a conviction are so severe. Long-term loss of freedom and a permanent criminal record are just a few of the many penalties that can result from a robbery charge in Missouri. Because of the violent nature of the charges, prosecutors are extremely aggressive in their attempts to secure convictions in robbery cases.

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 in Spider-Man mask robs Domino's driver in St. Louis County," by Kim Bell, published at STLToday.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 convenience store in the St. Louis area recently pled guilty to seven criminal charges involving the sale of illegal drugs and was assessed the largest criminal fine ever handed down to a corporation in the area. The incident also marked the first time that such a criminal fee was paid by a corporation in St. Clair County.

The company at the center of the incident is the Midwest Fuel Center Inc. of East St. Louis, which also does business as Crown Food Mart. The convenience store chain was ultimately fined $100,000 due to its violation of criminal laws dealing with illegal drugs.

The seven charges the corporation pled guilty to involve synthetic drugs sold at three of its East St. Louis stores. All three locations were raided by police in April of this year after reports surfaced about illegal drugs being sold from the stores. Though the initial focus of the investigation was on synthetic drugs, the investigation also revealed that the company was in possession of other drugs such as Viagra and Cialis without a license to prescribe or dispense such drugs. The three stores were located on Collinsville Avenue, State Street at 83rd Street and River Park Drive.

The corporation pled guilty to unlawful delivery of a controlled substance, unlawful possession with intent to deliver a look-alike substance, unlawful possession with intent to deliver a legend drug, or prescription drug, offering for sale a misbranded article, drug paraphernalia sale, permitting the unlawful use of a building and maintaining a public nuisance.

The investigation was conducted by the St. Clair County Sheriff's Department's Drug Tactical Unit and resulted from a desire to target criminal activity linked to violent crimes in East St. Louis. Prosecutors said that the conviction represents the first in that county under the state's Controlled Substance Analog law which was passed in 2011 and meant to target those producing and distributing synthetic drugs.

The prosecution was meant to serve as a kind of warning to other companies who might be inclined to turn a blind eye to criminal activity taking place on their premises. The funds will go towards the county's police department and will be used to improve enforcement against other violators. The St. Clair County Sheriff's Drug Tactical Unit's Drug Asset Forfeiture Fund and the St. Clair County State's Attorney's Drug Asset Forfeiture Fund will each get about $18,000. The newly formed Metro East Police District will get $54,000.

Though a $100,000 fine sounds bad enough, that's likely not the end of this story. Prosecutors said chargers are still pending against individuals involved the sale of illegal drugs, this deal only involved the corporation's responsibility.

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: "Judge fines East St. Louis convenience store company $100,000 in drug case," by Carolyn P. Smith, published at BND.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Missouri Meth Making Lands Man Behind Bars
Officers Crack Down on Boating While Intoxicated in Missouri

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

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 recent and very troubling report out of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, drug cases in the area are met with a 6-8 month delay in the lab. The county lab is located in Clayton and services every police department in the county, a few federal agencies, and the Major Case Squad. The problem appears to be too much work and too few resources to handle it.

In 2009, the St. Louis lab tested 716 drug cases. This year, so far, they've analyzed 2,989 cases. That represents an alarming jump, and the year is only slightly more than halfway done. The influx of cases can partially be tied to increasing enforcement by police who are interested in cracking down on drug crimes. Also, the staff of the lab has been cut due to budget issues which is putting strain on those left behind.

Though increasing the staff is the long-term goal, in the meantime, officials have asked prosecutors to only order tests on cases they actually plan to prosecute. Previously, every suspected drug confiscated by local law enforcement would come through the lab, this despite the fact that prosecutors typically do not pursue charges in 40% of the cases. The wasted tests represented an enormous and unnecessary expenditure of both time and money.

Officials have said they are also considering field test kits for police. Lab tests would still be needed, but a field test would be enough probable cause to go forward with charges while they wait for confirmation from the lab. This would allow defendants to get into treatment or discuss a plea bargain in the meantime, rather than be held in limbo while out on bond.

The problem is unfortunately not just a local one. The Bureau of Justice Statistics recently released the results of a 2009 national survey of publicly funded crime labs. Their findings were very worrisome for those whose future rests on the results of the tests:

• During 2009, the 411 federal, state, county and municipal labs operating that year received over 4 million requests for a wide range of forensic services. • At the end of 2009, the nation's publicly funded crime labs had an estimated backlog of 1.2 million requests for forensic services, which was relatively unchanged from the backlog at yearend 2008. • Of the 1,153,700 backlogged requests at the end of 2009, "forensic biology" (mostly DNA) was the main driver, with 494,400 offender/arrestee samples waiting to be processed, and 399,300 backlogged requests relating to investigating criminal cases. That's 77.5% of crime lab backlogs attributed to "forensic biology." Controlled substance testing registered the third largest portion of the backlog, with 121,800 pending requests.

The problem is a big one as defendants have a constitutional right to a speedy trial and if an accused person cannot afford to post bail, long delays in processing evidence lead to a protracted period waiting in jail for a trial. Defendants whose rights are compromised by a long wait to process evidence may even feel compelled to plea bargain and accept responsibility for crimes they did not commit, just to hurry the process along and get out of jail sooner.

In circumstances like these, individuals accused of crimes need the advice of an experienced criminal defense attorney. If you find yourself in need of a Missouri criminal defense lawyer capable of aggressively protecting your interests, contact our St. Louis criminal defense law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Crime Lab Backup Hinders Missouri Drug War," by Christine Byers, published at Officer.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Laser Pointing Lands St. Louis Teen In Jail
Former St. Louis Teacher Who Confessed to Sex Crimes Now Facing Charges

A St. Louis man was recently arrested after setting fire to a Chevy Monte Carlo located at the Perry County Community Lake. Federico Hurtado-Melgarejo, 29, was charged with knowingly burning, forgery (for a forged international license) and fugitive warrant possession of a controlled substance.

Last weekend around midnight the police responded to a call about a vehicle fire out by the lake at a boat ramp. The Perryville Fire Department was called to the scene and worked to contain the fire. They were able to identify not only the vehicle but where the singed car was registered.

While the police were in the area they happened upon a man in a ditch nearby. The man was later identified as Federico Hurtado-Melgarejo While police continued the investigation they happened upon two more Hispanic males waiting in a nearby Walmart parking lot in a vehicle that was also registered to Hurtado. The other men revealed that Hurtado had driven the car to the lake where he then set it on fire. They were told to wait at the Walmart for him to return.

All three men were detained but the two sitting in the Walmart parking lot were released without being charged.

Fire crimes in Missouri are no laughing matter and though they may seem minor, they are anything but. The vehicle fire in this case was on a smaller scale than typical incidents of arson which can result in severe penalties. A person is guilty of arson in Missouri when he or she willfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns or causes to be burned or who aids, counsels, or procures the burning of, any structure, forestland, or property. Any act of arson that causes great bodily injury is a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for up to nine years.

In Missouri, Hurtado was able to avoid the more serious charge of arson because the state's law says that arson of property does not include one burning or causing to be burned his or her own personal property unless there is intent to defraud or there is injury to another person or another person's structure, forestland, or property.

Setting fires is a very serious criminal offense, as any experienced St. Louis criminal defense attorney can tell you. A conviction can land you in jail and result in a substantial loss of your freedom. If you have been accused of arson or any other criminal offense, don't hesitate to contact our St. Louis criminal law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "St. Louis man arrested for setting car on fire at Perryville lake," by Amber Ruch, published at KFVS12.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
New Missouri Law Will Allow Expungement
Missouri Juveniles in Prison for Murder Prepare for Sentencing Changes

Thanks to recent legislation signed by Governor Jay Nixon last week, nonviolent criminals in Missouri with good behavior may see their sentences shortened. The legislation is aimed at drug abusers, thieves and other nonviolent felons who are clogging up the state's justice system which the Governor wants to see reserves for the most dangerous and persistent criminals.

The new law won't simply open up the jail cells and release people from prison early. Instead, the idea is that the law will reduce the expense of probation and parole by focusing on offenders already out of jail. For every month such nonviolent offenders go without a violation, the new law will give those offenders 30 days of credit toward their probation and parole sentences.

Along with a carrot comes a stick and the law allows probation and parole officers to order those under their supervision back to jail for a few hours or days without having a full revocation hearing. Judges will also be allowed to impose 120-day sentences as opposed to potentially longer prison terms for those that have violated the terms of their parole. The point of the law is to direct nonviolent offenders away from lengthy sentences and toward treatment and rehabilitation.

The legislation that recently passed includes several recommendations from a task force created last year to review ways of reducing probation and parole revocations. The current bill isn't nearly as sweeping, as the task force recommended changes that would save the state between $7.7 million and $16 million by 2017. An analysis of the current legislation says that the state will likely see savings of less than $1 million during the next five years.

The Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys issued a statement praising the new law for making "common-sense reforms to the corrections system, centering on effective management of probationers as opposed to needless release of vast numbers of violent criminals." The group said that the new law smartly puts more money into treatment and rehabilitation, a change that's far more likely to fix problems early on and avoid the need to go to prison in the first place.

Along with the law comes the creation of a 13-member Sentencing and Corrections Oversight Commission. The Commission will be tasked with evaluating any reductions in criminal recidivism rates, costs savings and other results of the new sentencing provisions and reporting back to the legislature on its findings.

If you or someone you know has been charged with a crime in the St. Louis area contact our St. Louis Criminal Defense Firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Nixon signs changes to Missouri sentencing laws," by The Associated Press, published at NECN.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Supreme Court Plea Offer Ruling
SUPREME COURT REQUIRES WARRANT TO USE GPS TO TRACK PEOPLE

The Supreme Court recently held that it is cruel and unusual punishment to send a young murderer to life in prison if a judge has not first weighed whether he deserves a shorter prison sentence due to his youth and the specific nature of his crimes. The 5-4 decision struck down laws on the books in some 28 states - including Missouri - that say life sentences without parole for juvenile murderers are acceptable.

Officials in Missouri law enforcement say it will take some time for the state to assess the impact of the ruling. It remains uncertain what exactly the impact the case will have on the 84 cases in the state in where a juvenile is currently serving life without parole. According to the Missouri Department of Corrections, in 46 of those cases the offenders were 17 at the time of the crime, 25 were age 16, 11 were age 15, and two were age 14.

It's clear that Missouri's laws will have to be rewritten thanks to the recent ruling. It's important to note that the decision does not mean it's unconstitutional to sentence juveniles to life I prison, only that statutes that make such sentences mandatory are no longer acceptable. In Missouri, if a juvenile who is certified as an adult is convicted of first-degree murder, the only option is life without parole.

In one recent high profile case, that of 15-year-old Antonio Andrews, the juvenile killed a police officer. The case eventually made its way up to the state Supreme Court where the defense attorney argued that a mandatory life sentence amounted to cruel and unusual punishment because it did not allow judges to take specifics about the defendant's situation into consideration, almost exactly what the U.S. high court held. The Missouri Supreme Court rejected the argument.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on two cases of 14-year-old boys, one from Alabama and another from Arkansas, who were given life sentences for their roles in a murder. In the case of young people who participate in homicide, "a judge or jury must have the opportunity to consider mitigating circumstances before imposing the harshest possible penalty." Justice Elena Kagan wrote, "We therefore hold that mandatory life without parole for those under age 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on 'cruel and unusual punishments.'" The Court's four conservative justices dissented, saying that nothing in the Constitution forbade laws requiring mandatory life in prison without parole for juveniles. The recent ruling follows the ruling from 2010 where the justices held that life sentences with no parole are unconstitutional for juveniles who commit any crimes short of murder.

The ruling could lead to either new sentences or expedited parole hearings for more than 2,000 offenders across the country who were juveniles when they committed their crimes. It is important to understand that the recent decision does not mean any prisoners are freed from custody.

If you or someone you know has been charged with a crime in the St. Louis area contact our St. Louis Criminal Defense Firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Missouri juvenile sentencing to change after Supreme Court decision," by Jennifer Mann, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Missouri Judge Demands that Convicted Murderer Get a New Trial
Statutory Rape Case Creates Cultural Confusion

The Wall Street Journal recently published an article about the far-reaching arm of federal criminal law and one unsuspecting person is all too familiar with its reach. Hessam Ghane, a 62-year-old chemist from Missouri, found himself facing a federal criminal conviction after threatening to take his own life using cyanide. He is now serving an 8-year federal prison sentence and several people are wondering why the federal government is involved in the first place. Ghane was admitted to a mental institution after experiencing delusions. He threatened to harm himself and several other unnamed government officials with the cyanide he kept in his home. At the hospital he gave police permission to search his home and that is where they discovered the cyanide. He was tried once and there was a hung jury. He was convicted the second time, in 2010.

Ghane's use of cyanide violated an old federal law that is part of a chemical-weapons treaty. The law makes it a crime to possess toxic chemicals, including cyanide. Included within the law are some common household cleaners if they are used for a destructive purpose. Cleaning the kitchen or bathroom with ammonia would not be illegal, but pouring the ammonia into the goldfish tank would violate the federal law.

Ghane challenged his conviction and a federal appeals court in St. Louis upheld the conviction, even though it thought the rationale behind the use of the law in this case may have been flawed. This is just one of the many instances of federal criminal law reaching deep into the states. Some critics of the ever-increasing power of federal law believe that Congress' constant passage of new criminal laws is making it difficult for the average citizen to know when he or she has run afoul of the law. Ghane's attorney indicated that they would not stop at the court of appeals, but that they would appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

Hessam Ghane's challenge to the federal law that served as the basis for conviction is not the only challenge to the law. Carol Bond, a Pennsylvania woman, was also convicted under the law for spreading a toxic chemical on the mailbox, car door, and front door of a woman who had an affair with her husband. The victim suffered a chemical burn on her thumb. Bonds' attorneys argue that her crime is a state offense and that prosecuting her under the federal law violates the 10th Amendment.

The federal government's criminalization of the possession of toxic chemicals such as cyanide is allowed under Congress's broad power to regulate interstate commerce and those things that can have an effect on interstate commerce. The Justice Department's interpretation of the statute reveals that Congress made its intention very clear. Ghane's case, and the others challenging the law, should put Missouri defense attorneys on notice that they may have to face increased federal encroachment into the state criminal law arena. If you've had a run in with police and find yourself in need of a Missouri 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: "Terror Law's Long Reach Challenged," by John R. Emshwiller and Gary Fields, published at WSJ.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Will Missouri move towards mandatory ignition interlock devices for DWI offenders?
St. Louis Red Light Camera Ordinance Unconstitutional

The Missouri House of Representatives recently passed a bill that could significantly decrease the number of listed registered sex offenders in the state. The bill is House Bill 1700 and it received unprecedented support from both sides of the aisle. It removes mandatory registration for some sex offenses and it creates an avenue for offenders to come off of the list early depending on the severity of their convicted offense.

Proponents of the bill believe that it is an attempt to reign in the state's severe sex offender registry laws. There are currently more than 12,000 people on Missouri's sex offender registry list. The convicted offenses of the registered offenders range in severity. Some have been convicted of extreme and heinous rape crimes while others are on the registry because of a teenage indiscretion, such as consensual sex between minors. Proponents believe that as many as 5000 names could be trimmed from the registry.

Part of the rationale for the new legislation comes from the proliferation of the registry. People are no longer afraid of the registry because overactive lawmakers and prosecutors are placing people on the registry who are not a threat to society. As such, the registry is no longer an effective deterrent. Rep. Rodney Schad, R-Versailles, said, "The public has become numb to the registry."

Another purpose of the bill is to allow those who are required to register to have a chance at being productive members of society. After 10 years of being on the registry an offender can petition the court to have his or her name removed. For more severe offenses, an offender is required to wait 20 years before petitioning for removal. The process requires the offender to petition the prosecuting attorney first and then prove that all of the requirements for removal have been met and that he or she has not committed any new offenses that would require the offender to register. If the offender is able to meet the requirements for removal, proponents of the bill are confident that he or she no longer poses a threat to society and can be removed from the registry.

The likely target of the new legislation are the "Romeo and Juliet" cases. Those are cases in which one teen is engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with another teenager. In those cases, one of the teenagers' parents may have become angry about the relationship and accuses the older teenager of sexual misconduct. In many states, charges like statutory rape are strict liability crimes, meaning that there is no intent requirement. If both parties are in the right age range, the older one is automatically guilty of statutory rape, which could require the convicted offender be listed on the sex offender registry. Allowing these offenders to petition to be removed from the registry would improve their quality of life and remove the stigma of being labeled a sex offender.

Missouri criminal defense attorneys will likely be getting calls from many of these offenders requesting their assistance with petitioning the court for removal. If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a Missouri 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: "Missouri House passes sex offender bill," by Elizabeth Crisp, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
St. Louis police off to a violent start to the year as use-of-force increases
Supreme Court Plea Offer Ruling

The state of Missouri is now dealing with an unfortunate set of events involving a middle school child, a little baby, an unsuspecting 20-something, and a distant culture. A little girl in the seventh grade went to a St. Louis abortion clinic seeking to terminate her pregnancy. The clinic called social services and social services called the St. Louis police department. After an investigation, the prosecutors charged the father of the unborn child, 20-something Asannay Marbati with first-degree statutory rape.

By the time the investigation was complete and the charges were filed, the girl had decided to keep her baby and Marbati had moved closer to the family to seemingly be a father to his child. During the course of the investigation, the girl and her mother, both from the small, war-torn eastern African country of Eritrea, tried to explain to investigators that the consensual sexual encounter between the girl and Marbati, also from Eritrea, was acceptable in their country. Under Missouri law, however, it was not allowed and Marbati would be punished accordingly.

St. Louis police detectives explained to Marbati that his actions constituted a crime in Missouri, punishable by up to five years in prison. The story, however, is a little more complicated than it sounds. The crux of a statutory rape conviction depends on the prosecution being able to prove the age of the participants in the sexual act. In Missouri, to sustain a first-degree statutory rape charge, prosecutors have to prove that the girl was under the age of 18 at the time of the sexual act. It does not matter how old Marbarti was at the time of the sexual act. For a second-degree statutory rape conviction, prosecutors would have to prove that she was between the ages of 14 and 17 and that Marbarti was over the age of 21 at the time of the sexual act.

The problem is that the ages of both the "victim" and the "perpetrator" cannot be exactly determined. The young girl is considered to be 12 only because when she came to this country in 2007, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials guessed at her age. In the village where she was born, they do not keep birth records so she is not sure when she was born. The villagers also do not follow a calendar, making it impossible to even pinpoint events that may have happened around the time of her birth to get a more accurate estimate of her age. This problem proved to be a goldmine for defense attorney John Rogers who argued that if the prosecution could not determine exactly old she was, they could not determine whether she was under the age of consent at the time of the sexual act. During a bench trial, the judge agreed and dismissed the case against Marbati. The prosecution, however, has appealed the dismissal.

This is a situation where two cultures have collided. What is acceptable in the nation of Eritrea is not acceptable in the United States and the cultural shock may leave many unsuspecting immigrants with criminal charges because they are not aware of the law in this country. If you've had a run in with police and find yourself in need of a Missouri 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: "Culture, law clash in statutory rape case against Eritrean immigrant in St. Louis," published at stltoday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Missouri and the "Stand Your Ground" Law
Supreme Court Plea Offer Ruling

According to an article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the city of St. Louis has been wracked with an unusual amount of violence in only the first month of the year as police officers have fired shots in five incidents over 19 days, killing one and wounding four. Of most concern is that several such instances appear to violate the department's own written protocols, although Chief Dan Isom said exceptions are frequently made.

Last year saw less police violence than normal as St. Louis police officers hit suspects with gunfire in 15 incidents during 2011. Officers typically fire between 30 and 40 times a year. Before hearing about the fifth incident of the year, Isom said that he though "Four is a concern." He was quick to point out that it "doesn't mean it's necessarily inappropriate... We look at these shootings on a case-by-case basis."

Isom clarified that the use-of-force policy begins with the following disclaimer: "In exceptional circumstances, violations of the restrictions may be justified by necessity." The procedures generally prohibit firing at or from moving vehicles, or being too quick to pull out a pistol.

Three of this year's five incidents involved shots at moving cars. One was the unintentional wounding of a teenager by an officer's un-holstered pistol during a struggle. The final incident, where a suspect was killed, involved a volley of shots in which three officers together fired almost 100 rounds.

Isom has said investigations regarding each incident are ongoing but that he has personally reviewed footage from several such episodes. "Are there things that could have been done differently? Right now, there's nothing glaring."

Isom says the protocols exist for a reason and officers should usually attempt to follow them to avoid creating unnecessary danger to others. For instance, the rule against shooting at a moving vehicle exists because a driver who is unable to control his vehicle has a much greater chance of injuring others.

Another procedure says that officers may "only draw or exhibit a weapon when he/she has reasonable cause to believe that it may be necessary to use that weapon." This comes from a 2009 study of 112 St. Louis police shootings that occurred between 2003 and 2007. The study, conducted by David Klinger, a University of Missouri-St. Louis criminologist, found that nearly half of all shootings included foot chases and many involved "officers getting too close to suspects while holding their service pistols."

When Klinger conducted the study, the St. Louis PD only conducted monthly, computerized refresher courses regarding deadly force training. Klinger felt this wasn't enough and that reforms needed to be made to ensure police behaved appropriately in dangerous situations. Isom said the department took action, implementing various changes with regard to deadly force training. These changes include more defensive tactics training and an extra firearms qualification day, with scenario-based training.

Hopefully these changes have an effect and reduce the levels of police violence seen thus far in 2012. If you've had a run in with police and find yourself in need of a Missouri 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 police shootings pit real world against policies," by Christine Byers, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Missouri's Criminal Code In Need of a Face Lift
St. Louis City gets Tough on Gun Crimes by Setting High Bonds