South Carolina Criminal Lawyer Blog

The New York Daily News confirmed that federal Judge Dora Irizarry of the Eastern District of New York will overturn a murder conviction today. Jabbar Collins has served fifteen (15) years in prison and could be released on bail today since the district attorney's office has admitted that evidence was withheld during his previous trial. Collins was originally sentenced to thirty-three (33) years to life for a murder that occurred in 1995 during the commencement of a robbery. Allegedly, a lead detective in the case confirmed that the key witness in the trial that stated he heard Collins plan the crime recanted his testimony. The prosecutor, Michael Vecchione of the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office, gave a sworn statement denying this accusation. Judge Irizarry was not impressed with the way the D.A.'s Office handled this case and felt they could have been more forthcoming about the matter. The detective will be a witness during the hearing today. Prosecutors seem to be uneasy about their probability of proving guilt in the upcoming trial and attempted to offer Collins time served if he would plead guilty to manslaughter. Collins immediately rejected this offer as he claims he is innocent of all charges against him.

Instances such as this can be disheartening to our confidence in the court system. Sometimes evidence that has been obtained is not always fully disclosed, which can have a detrimental effect on a juror's decision. If a juror is not able to review the facts and evidence in its entirety, an innocent person may be convicted for a crime he or she did not commit. This is exactly the reason why it is important to hire an attorney that can protect your best interests and make sure that your trial is fair and reasonable. The Government has a duty to disclose any and all information, whether it will be used in trial or not, because a small piece of evidence may be the key factor in verifying a person's innocence. Hiring the right criminal defense attorney can be a difficult task, so one must make sure to locate an attorney highly experienced within the practice of criminal law. Our attorneys are licensed in many areas throughout the United States and are ready to assist you in your case.

Continue reading " Convicting the Innocent " »

The alleged lead conspirator in a robbery and extortion case, Hector Rivera, has been sentenced to thirty-two years in prison. Rivera was originally indicted in December of 2008 following an investigation that linked him to robberies in midtown Manhattan from 2003 through 2008. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in New York, Rivera and numerous co-conspirators were targeting diamond businesses in the area. In one incident in 2005, the crew allegedly disguised themselves as FedEx delivery workers and entered a local diamond business. In the process, they tied up the employees and robbed the company of millions of dollars. During many of their crimes, the conspirators would also hijack vehicles known to be transporting merchandise.

Eventually, the FBI became more aware of Rivera's potential involvement and began recording his telephone conversations and personal meetings with the help of a confidential informant. While tracking Rivera, they discovered that another robbery was scheduled for December 4, 2008. Prior to the initiation of the robbery, investigators arrested Rivera and the co-conspirators. A jury trial was held before Judge Baer of the Southern District of New York about one year later and Rivera was found guilty of conspiracy to commit robbery, three counts of robbery or attempted robbery and two counts relating to a firearms charge.

Rivera actually received a lenient sentence as he was facing twenty years for each robbery charge, which does not include the firearms counts against him. However, he was required to forfeit $2.93 million in criminal proceeds. As in the instance case, the FBI and prosecution will investigate a potential conspirator for years in order to capture the high level offenders. This most often leads to additional charges against those who were much less involved in the conspiracy. This is the reason that it is most important to hire a criminal defense attorney that is experienced within the federal system. Once you are aware that you could be under investigation, contact an attorney that can provide you with advice and determine if the FBI actually views you as a viable suspect.

Continue reading " Federal Investigation " »

A recent trend is occurring in the Southeast. Many men are being charged with child pornography based on a allegations of a spouse during a divorce. This allegation is very damaging to the husband and can put him in a defensive position and lose any argument for custody of his children. Many wives have read online and heard that this allegation will put a huge amount of fear into a man. Not only does the husband have to fight for his children, but he now has to fight a serious allegation. The real problem is so few judges actually know what to do when this allegation is used in family court.
First, the abuse or child pornography allegation mysteriously appears when the separation or divorce proceedings commence. For some reason they were never reported prior to the husband and wife disagreeing on money or children. The courts should consider this as a crucial reason for this allegation to surface.
Second, no lay person can assure a judge that they have seen child pornography on a computer. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Postal Inspectors Office and very few other law enforcement agencies have the ability to confirm that images or videos actually contain minors. There are several pornographic images and videos that are not child pornography but may give rise to some concern.
Third, if there is child pornography on the computer, who downloaded it? Did the husband have the only access to this computer? and when were the images or videos downloaded? There are cases where the child pornography is downloaded and the defendant has no idea this has occurred.
A good criminal attorney will be able to investigate and provide a valid defense for this type of accusation. Our Charleston Criminal Attorney has vast experience defending child pornography indictments.

Continue reading " Child Pornography Defenses " »

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation of Columbia, Michael Derrick Peninger failed to appear for his sentencing on April 12, 2010 at the federal courthouse in Charleston, South Carolina. Peninger was originally convicted after his jury trial in counts relating to mail fraud and making false statements to federal authorities. He had been allowed to remain on bond and within the agreement stated that he would appear for sentencing. Upon failure to appear for sentencing, it is procedure for authorities to immediately locate an individual to be sure they have not fled the state or country to avoid punishment. Peninger was located on Daniel Island in Charleston, was arrested and is now awaiting sentencing.

Attending the sentencing hearing is very important in the criminal process since failing to appear not only results in a possible higher penalty, it can also make a judge less lenient during the actual sentencing. In Peninger's case, he could receive a fine of $250,000 and imprisonment for ten years that would run consecutive with his other sentence. Consecutive means that he would have to serve this time separately from his other charges. In order to avoid mistakes such as this, it is important to have a reliable federal defense attorney that can protect your best interests and make sure that you are prepared to appear for each hearing. Our South Carolina attorneys are highly experienced in both the federal and state system and can assist you in the defense of your case.

Continue reading " Attending Sentencing " »

According to South Carolina's newspaper, The State, William Craig Caughman of Columbia, South Carolina was arrested today for leaving the scene of an accident involving death. This type of offense is more commonly known as a hit and run. Allegedly, Caughman was driving his pickup truck on February 21, 2010 in downtown Columbia and struck a motorist, Toby Morriss. Since Caughman fled the scene, it is unknown whether he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Shortly after the incident, someone found Morriss' body in the road and immediately contacted authorities. Morriss was rushed to Lexington Medical Center, but died seven (7) days later from a blockage in his lungs associated with the injuries he sustained during the accident.

Until recently, the police have had few leads and no suspects; however, an anonymous tipster called in and identified Caughman as a potential suspect, so the police began their investigation. They discovered that he hid his 2000 Ford Ranger in a shed and the doors had been removed. Investigators believe that other individuals may have assisted him in covering up evidence. As a result of the charges against him, Caughman is facing a maximum of twenty-five (25) years in prison as the crime committed is considered a felony in the state of South Carolina.

For this particular case, Caughman will need an attorney that are knowledgeable about the penalties for varying degrees of homicide. In any situation, if you are under police investigation, it is vital to contact a criminal defense attorney that is experienced in both state and federal law. Our South Carolina attorneys can assist you if you are being investigated or have already been indicted for a crime.

Continue reading " Hit and Run " »

The next round of mortgage fraud indictments may soon be on the way from the United States Attorney in South Carolina. There will be developers, mortgage brokers, flippers and possible attorneys indicted. Many of the defendants are from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. A key resource to understand this new phase of indictments coming out of the Florence office is the F.B.I. (Federal Bureau of Investigation) website on mortgage fraud. A thorough understanding of this type of indictment is critical to a good defense to this type of case. Our federal defense attorneys are experienced in defending mortgage fraud cases. Many times the key to defending this type of case is understanding the loan process and how the funds were moved from one lender to a particular borrower. Information is critical to defending this type of case. A mortgage fraud case is a house of cards. Each player standing together can be strong, but if one defendant provides information to the government investigator, a new strategy may have to be used to limit a client's exposure in federal court. One of the hardest elements for the government to prove in a mortgage fraud indictment is intent. The desire to defraud a lender is critical to the governments case and any actions taken by a defendant to pay the lender prior to an indictment could be critical to the case.

REMEMBER ! THERE IS NO FRAUD UNTIL THE BANK STOPS GETTING PAID. The lenders rarely check any information on an application until the payments stop coming. You could submitted an application that is completely false and no one will care until you do not make a payment. The lenders did not do their job prior to lending the money, but that is not against the law. Mortgage fraud is a tool that banks are using to try and shift the burden of the housing debacle that has occurred. Many individuals were told by friends, brokers, bankers and sellers what to put on applications. You will need an experienced federal defense attorney to handle this type of case.

I new U.S. Attorney has now finally taken over the office in South Carolina. After having been held up in Washington for months, this new U.S. Attorney is a breath of fresh area for many attorneys.

Continue reading " South Carolina Mortgage Fraud Indictments " »

On May 13, 2010, the South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court in State v. Syllester D. Taylor. Taylor was originally arrested in July of 2006 for possession with intent to distribute (PWID) cocaine base. The appellate court concluded that the officers that arrested Taylor did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him as they did not witness him attempt to sell or purchase any drugs. In this case, the officer received an anonymous tip that a black male was riding a bicycle in the area and they suspected possible drug activity was taking place. The court found that receiving tips of this nature lack reliability since the person is unknown and could be providing false information. In such an instance, further investigation must take place that proves reasonable suspicion before an individual can be detained. Basically, in most cases, anonymous witnesses do not have credibility, thus the officer must observe criminal activity prior to making a stop. The tipster that identified Taylor did not prove to have inside information into his affairs nor any predictive information about his future whereabouts; therefore, they were deemed unreliable by the Court of Appeals. Further, after arriving at the location, the officer did not notice any behavior that could be associated with drug activity because he did not witness any drug exchange or concealment. Therefore, the court ruled that the officer had not established reasonable suspicion and had no legal right to search or apprehend him. As such, the court reversed his conviction and vacated his sentence.

In order to clarify cases involving these types of issues, the court did find that an officer should take into consideration the criminal activity notably involved in an area; however, that cannot be the only cause for suspicion. Further, there may be a combination of normally innocent actions, but when placed together, it may amount to reasonable suspicion. Some factors that can contribute to this finding are apparent nervousness and evasion. On the other hand, the court determined that there are innocent reasons as to why a person may evade police and in such cases, if an officer does not have reasonable suspicion, the individual can ignore the officer.

Although the lower court denied Taylor's initial motion to suppress the cocaine evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure, the Court of Appeals found a substantial error in its decision. This is primarily why it is important to retain an appellate attorney that will be able to protect your best interests and identify keys issues such as these on appeal. Taylor could have served a term of imprisonment for thirty years, but he was able to present evidence found in the record below that supported his claim. Going through this type of proceeding can be difficult and often discouraging as the appellate process can take years, so one must seek the advice of an attorney immediately. If you or someone you know is seeking to appeal their conviction, contact one of our South Carolina attorneys today at 1-800-94-TRIAL.

Continue reading " Appellate Defense " »

According to the National Post, Tonya Craft, a Georgia kindergarten teacher, has been found not guilty of molesting three young children by a twelve panel jury in the Catoosa County Superior Court. Craft was originally arrested in 2008 when accusations arose claiming that she had abused three children in her home between years 2005 and 2007. Craft's indictment listed twenty-two charges relating to child molestation. As a result of the extensive amount of allegations against her, she faced approximately four hundred years in prison. Reportedly, one of the children that testified against her at trial was her own daughter. Although Craft was found not guilty, she has lost her job and the custody of her two children in the process. Since the verdict, she has stated that she plans on seeking custody of her children immediately.

During the initial part of trial, Craft's defense attorney, Demosthenes Lorandos, filed a motion requesting the recusal of Judge Brian House. Judge House had represented Craft's ex-husband in their divorce proceedings in the 1990s, which Craft's defense attorney believed would affect the fairness of trial. However, Judge House refused to step down and many spectators did not agree with his decision and found it to be a conflict of interest on his part. This situation has, in turn, caused Lorandos to contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney's Office about the behavior of both Judge House and the Catoosa County D.A.'s Office.

In any instance, this case calls into question the validity of testimony provided by children. Most states have what is known as the child hearsay exception wherein judges determine the reliability with due consideration to factors, such as consistent statements, spontaneity, state of mind, etc. Accordingly, the judge must conclude whether these factors, among a list of others, indicate that the child is reliable and his or her testimony can be deemed trustworthy and accurate. However, many psychologists have confirmed that children can often experience false memory. In this type of situation, the child can be pressured or certain behaviors can be suggested by authority figures. This causes the child to want a particular instance to happen to such an extent that they end of believing it, leading to false memory. This is most commonly known as the power of suggestion.

When someone is indicted for a crime, it is important to seek out the assistance of a knowledgeable defense attorney. In this particular case, Craft's attorney was able to show that the testimony provided by the children was unreliable. An attorney must not only be experienced in criminal defense, but also in case studies related to that particular crime in order to prepare a proper defense.

Continue reading " Tonya Craft Found Not Guilty " »

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil fraud suit against Goldman Sachs Group in April of this year. While in litigation, S.E.C. also referred the investigation to federal prosecutors for the Southern District of New York, which could potentially lead to additional issues for the investment company. S.E.C.'s main argument is that Goldman has been defrauding its investors in relation to a mortgage deal known as Abacus 2007-AC1. Allegedly, there are internal e-mail messages within the company wherein employees had vilified investments that they were selling to customers. Basically, the company created an investment vehcile that allowed certain investors to bet against the housing market crash by purchasing securities to counter the mortgage bonds they believed would fail. Goldman was selling these same investments to its customers. Its customers lost billions when the housing market crashed while the investors that bet against them profited. This type of situation is commonly known as white collar fraud. This instance of white collar crime is especially signficant since, at this point, it involves an entire company rather than select individuals. Prosecutors often find difficulty charging a whole company because it can potentially upset the economy. The alternative is identifying key players involved in the conspiracy to decrease the effect.

At this point, the company is only under a preliminary investigation and little is known about the effect this criminal inquiry will have on the firm. According to a recent post from USA Today, if Goldman Sachs chooses to admit wrongdoing to avoid criminal prosecution, then its reputation as a key investor could be lost. This places Goldman in a particularly uneasy situation since the future of the company could be at stake depending on the result of these investigations. The company has continued to deny any involvement or wrongdoing that has been alleged by S.E.C.; however, in civil cases, the plaintiff wins if a preponderance of evidence is shown in favor of the plaintiff. In short, if S.E.C. is able show the jury that there is a more than a 50% probability that Goldman Sachs was directly involved in the investment scandal, then they will likely win their suit. On the other hand, criminal law involves a higher burden of proof in which the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the reason that prosecutors wish to conduct an investigation prior to filing an indictment in order to collect as much evidence as possible in connection with the alleged crime.

If the company or selected executives associated with the company are indicted, then it will be important to hire a knowledgeable attorney that specializes in white collar crime. An experienced defense attorney will be able to discuss any issues within the case and the possible outcomes that may result.

Continue reading " Goldman Sachs - White Collar Crime " »

The United States Court of Appeals has issued a decision in regards to U.S. v. Marques Drakeford Bynum. Bynum initially was indicted for the transportation and possession of child pornography in September of 2006. A jury found him guilty on all counts and he was later sentenced to a term of 192 months in prison. Bynum filed a notice of appeal and oral arguments were held on March 25, 2010. Prior to the issuance the opinion, Bynum argued that his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated because the Government used secret administrative subpoenas to obtain his information. During their investigation, the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued several subpoenas to different companies associated with Bynum's IP address. Eventually, investigators were provided with his name, telephone number and address. The Court found that Bynum assumed the risks when he gave his information to these companies and also knew that they could possibly be accessed by the police. Further, the Court reasoned that subscriber information is not protected under the Fourth Amendment, so Bynum's argument would have been invalid regardless of his findings.

Bynum also argued that the Government did not provide sufficient evidence proving that he rather than some other person had downloaded the child pornography. The Court stated that there were several factors linking him to the alleged incident making it improbable that the pornography had been accessed by someone else. He further asserted that his 192-month sentence was unreasonable as it was harsh in comparison to individuals under a similar criminal history category. However, the Court determined the Bynum did not demonstrate this excessiveness in relation to other individuals in the same criminal history category and offense level. Thus, the Court found that none of his arguments constituted an error within the district court and subsequently affirmed the judgment.

In the instance case, the Court had to determine applicable law that relates to a more recent evolution, the ability to attain child pornography images online. In many circumstances, the content may have been acquired by the actions of another, not necessarily the owner of the computer and/or IP address. These are the type of issues that may be difficult to prove in court, which is why it is vital to seek the advice of a knowledgeable federal defense attorney that has dealt with issues of this caliber. Child pornography accusations can result in a significant amount of prison time. Our South Carolina attorneys are skilled in criminal defense and also have reliable investigators that are experienced in FBI and law enforcement investigations which will help in the defense of your case.

Continue reading " Ruling on Child Pornography " »