South Carolina Criminal Lawyer Blog

A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence in an appeal to support his conviction bears heavy burden. On the other hand, while the burden is heavy, it is not insurmountable. In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence supporting a conviction, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate court must allow the government the benefit of all reasonable influences from the facts proven to those sought to be established.

A jury's verdict must be upheld if there is substantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, to support it. This includes circumstantial and direct evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the government. Note that an appellate court may not overturn a substantially supported verdict merely because it finds the verdict unpalatable or determines that another, resasonable verdict would be preferable.

Circumstantial as well as direct evidence may be considered in resolving a sufficiency of the evidence challege. Circumstantial evidence which does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence may nevertheless be enough to withstand a sufficiency of the evidence challenge.

In determining sufficiency of the evidence, the credibility of witnesses is strictly a matter for the jury. As to how much evidence is enough, the Fourth Circuit has held that the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness may be sufficient, even if that witness is an accomplice, a co-defendant, or an informant. On the other hand, it is beyond dispute that criminal defendant's conviction cannot rest entirely on an uncorroborated extrajudicial confession. If a post verdict challenge to sufficiency of the evidence is difficult, a post guilty plea challenge is all but impossible.

Rather, the sentencing court may use anything in the record, including the defendant's admission of guilt and any hearsay it considers reliable, to determine whether there is a factual basis for the guilty plea.

Finally, because a stipulation induces the government not to offer evidence to prove the facts involved in the stipulation, a defendant may not argue at trial or on appeal that the stipulation is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the facts or elements to which he has stipulated.

If you or someone you know would like to start the appeals process, call one of the experienced Myrtle Beach appeal lawyers at The Mace Firm for a free consultation.

Tweet

Continue reading "Sufficiency of Evidence for Appeals" »

Failure to object to sentencing errors in the district court constitutes waiver of the right to appeal those issues, in the absence of plain error. Plain error in the sentencing context is error so obvious and substantial that failure to notice and correct it would affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.

The plain error exception to the contemporaneous objection requirement allows an appellate court to correct plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights even if they were not brought to the trial court's attention. However, this is applied only sparingly and saves only particularly egregious errors in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.

To reverse for plain error the reviewing of the court must 1. identify error, 2. which is plain, 3. which affects substantial rights, and 4. which seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.

Even when plain error is clearly established the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals must decide whether to notice the error. The Fourth Circuit makes this determination not by viewing the error in isolation, but by viewing it against the entire record. Only if in context of the proceedings taken as a whole, the error led to the conviction of a defendant who is actually innocent or otherwise seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings will the Fourth Circuit exercise discretion to notice it.

The United States Constitution guarantees a fair trial, not a perfect one. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that most constitutional errors can be harmless. Even errors as serious as improper admission of an involuntary confession, failure to instruct the jury on presumption of innocence, and improper denial of counsel at a preliminary hearing may be harmless in a particular case. When correctly applied, harmless error and structural error analysis produce identical results with unfair convictions being reversed while fair convictions are affirmed.

In fact, the Supreme Court has found an error to be structural, and thus subject to automatic reversal only in a limited class of cases. The test for determining harmlessness is whether it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.

The outcome of a harmless error analysis is by necessity fact-specific. What may be harmless within the context of one set of facts may prove to be otherwise within the context of another.

If you believe that you or someone you know has been sentenced unfairly, you will need to hire a good appeal lawyer to assist you with your appeal. There are deadlines for certain documents to be filed in the district court to be able to appeal your sentence, so you should contact an appeal attorney immediately after you have been sentenced. Please contact The Mace Firm to set a consultation with one of our appellate attorneys.

Continue reading "Appealing Sentencing Errors" »

A Texas appeals court has formally exonerated a man set free last week after he spent nearly 25 years in prison for his wife’s 1986 killing. He was exonerated because DNA tests indicate another man committed the murder. DNA was found this summer during testing on a bloody blue bandanna recovered near the crime scene soon after the killing matched that of a man who authorities say has a criminal record in several states. Morton’s appeal lawyers have accused John Bradley, the local district attorney, of suppressing evidence that would have helped clear Morton. That evidence included a transcript of a police interview indicating that Morton's son said the attacker was not his father. They argue that the district attorney's office withheld a transcript of a conversation between Rita Kirkpatrick, Christine Morton's mother, and a sheriff's investigator in which she told the officer that Morton's 3-year-old son saw a "monster" who was not his father attack and kill his mother.

Morton's appeal attorney also alleged that prosecutors and investigators repeatedly hid non-DNA evidence from Morton’s original defense attorney, including evidence that one of his wife's credit cards was used and one of her checks cashed days after her slaying.

Morton remains on parole and won’t be allowed to leave Texas until the appeals court’s ruling takes effect in 30 days. Morton is very excited to be out of prison, but he also has questions as to why he was wrongfully convicted in the first place. Morton was exonerated due to this new DNA evidence revealed in the case. Morton's appellate lawyers allege that there was much more evidence besides the DNA that could have exonerated Morton from the outset.

If you are found guilty after a trial, you have the right to appeal both your conviction and your sentence. In both state or federal courts there are time limits for filing a "notice to appeal" a conviction or sentence. In state courts, the time limits are usually different in each state. If you pled guilty, you may not be able to appeal your conviction. But you can appeal your sentence if the sentence is illegal or if it was higher than you and the prosecutor agreed to in a plea bargain, and the court agreed to the terms of the bargain before sentencing you. For a sentence to be illegal (which is rare), it has to be higher than that allowed by law.

Winning on an appeal doesn't necessarily mean that your conviction will be thrown out or that you will get out of jail. Although that can happen, typically what will happen is your case will be sent back ("remanded") to the judge or court where you were convicted and/or sentenced. After that, you may:

◦Be given a new trial on the criminal charges, or the chance to negotiate a plea with the prosecution

◦Have a new sentencing hearing, where, usually, the judge or court will fix the sentence so that it's no longer illegal or follows the terms of your plea agreement. In many cases, the court on appeal will give specific instructions to judge about how to fix the sentence

If you or someone you know would like to start the appeals process, call one of the experienced Myrtle Beach appeal lawyers at The Mace Firm for a free consultation.

Tweet

Continue reading "Murder Appeal" »

Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend were convicted in 2009 of killing roommate Meredith Kercher in Perugia. Yesterday, the appeals court overturned the conviction and Knox is scheduled to return to the United States this week. The verdict was a severe embarrassment to the Italian justice system. The verdict came after independent forensic investigators criticized police scientific evidence in the original investigation, concluding it was unreliable. The court upheld a conviction against Knox for slander because she had falsely accused Patrick Lumumba of the murders. The court sentenced her to three years in prison which she has already served. Knox's appeals lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova said his client "would be marked by the case for life and by the memory of her friend Meredith but wanted to get back to normal life."

After all this, the Italian public prosecutor said that he would appeal against the acquittal. The prosecution can't file their appeal until the court publishes their explanation of its decision, which wont be available for a few months. The prosecution plans to appeal to Italy's highest appeals court, the Court of Cassation. The prosecutor mentioned, "if the two who were released yesterday were not the guilty parties, we are left wondering who are the other person or people and for us it feels very much like back to square one." An appeal to Italy's supreme court is open to both sides in a case. But Lyle Kercher, a family member of the victim, noted that the prosecutor would need authorization from his superiors to move forward.

What's next for Amanda Knox? Her stepdad,Chris Mellas, said that their family's priority is to live together normally for a while, "so that she can get used to not being in prison, which is going to take some time". Of course there are rumours of at least one T.V. interview in the United States with a major news network to tell her story. Her family says that Amanda would like to publish a book about her experiences that should reveal more about her personal character. "She'll write, because that's her way of dealing with things," said Mellas. He added, "her experiences since the death of Meredith Kercher have made her pretty wary of journalists."

Without Amanda Knox's appellate attorney, she may have had to spend much much longer in prison for a crime she claims she did not commit. If you or someone you know would like to appeal a criminal conviction, call one of the experienced appellate lawyers at The Mace Firm to help you with your case.

Tweet

Continue reading "Amanda Knox's Acquittal" »

On Tuesday, a Florida appeals court denied the request that would have stopped Casey Anthony from starting a one year probation for check fraud. The court of appeals disagreed with the argument that the enforcement of the probation order would be in violation of the constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy. Anthony's attorneys thought that she already completed the probation sentence in jail while she was awaiting trial on the murder charges. This ruling upheld a lower court's order which requires Anthony to report to a Florida probation office by noon on Friday.

After she was aquitted of murder in the death of her daughter, Anthony vanished from public view. Since Tuesday however, her criminal defense attorney says she is now back in Florida. This probation order stems from a sentence imposed in January after Anthony pleaded guilty to stealing checks from a friend. The judge said that Anthony would serve the probation upon her release, but those instructions never made it into written order. Corrections officials thought the sentence meant that Anthony could serve the probation while she was in jail.

This month, the judge clarified that Anthony must begin the probation now that she is out of jail. He then recused himself from the case and turned it over to Judge Belvin Perry, the same judge who presided over Anthony's murder trial. Perry upheld the previous judge's order, and Anthony's criminal defense attorneys appealed last week to the Fifth District Court of Appeals in Daytona Beach. Anthony's attorney said she was in Florida and would report to a probation office to start probation if the appeal failed. Shortly after Judge Perry issued his order for her to report to a probation officer, Anthony's defense team filed an appeal. They claim that forcing Anthony to serve probation again is an "illegal sentence" and puts her in harm's way especially if she must serve the probation in Florida since she has received death threats following the murder trial.

The terms of Anthony's probation include monthly check-ins with a probation officer and random searches of her home. She will also be required to have a job. Anthony could request to serve probation in another state but the other state must approve the request. It is not clear at this time whether Anthony will be able to serve her probation out of state or what measures will be taken to protect her. While her murder trial was going on, Anthony received numerous death threats. Judge Perry wrote in his order for Anthony to return to Florida, "this court is very mindful that it is a high probability that there are many that would like to see physical harm visited upon the defendant."

If you or some one you know has been charged with a federal crime, call one of our experienced federal criminal lawyers at The Mace Firm for a free consultation.

Tweet

Continue reading "Casey Anthony Appeal on Probation" »

The Obama Administration won the first appellate review of the 2010 health care law as a three judge panel from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held it is constitutional for Congress to require Americans buy health insurance. This ruling came as the first of three to be delivered by separate courts of appeal. The 4th Circuit in Richmond, VA and the 11th Circuit in Atlanta are expected to hand down their opinions very soon.

Appellate lawyers on both sides of the case expect the Supreme Court to take one of the cases. Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who is typically considered a conservative, is an appointee of President George W. Bush and was joined by a Democrat, Judge Boyce Martin Jr., who was appointed by President Carter, to write the majority opinion. Sutton wrote, "In my opinion, the government has the better of the arguments". He added, "Not every intrusive law is an unconstitutionally intrusive law." This is the first time a Republican federal court appointee has affirmed the merits of the law. Judge James Graham opposed the majority opinion. He was appointed by President Reagan and was on temporary assignment to the 6th Circuit.

The 6th Circuit majority sided with appellate attorney Neal Katyal, who is the Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the U.S., and decided that the mandate was "constitutional under the Commerce Clause" because "the provision regulates economic activity that congress had a rational basis to believe has substantial effects on interstate commerce," Martin wrote. "In addition, Congress had a rational basis to believe that the provision was essential to its larger economic scheme reforming the interstate markets in health care and health insurance." Graham opposed their reasoning and stated that if the mandate were allowed, "it is difficult to see what the limits on Congress Commerce Clause authority would be."

Tweet

Continue reading "U.S. Appeals Court Upholds Obama Health Care Law" »

Amanda Knox was originally sentenced to 26 years in prison last year for the death of her roommate, Meredith Kercher. Knox and her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, were found guilty of the murder. According to CNN, Knox's appeal has allowed her to retest the evidence that was used to convict her (i.e. DNA samples from the murder weapon). Further, an Italian inmate testified that a fellow prisoner confessed that Knox was not involved in the killing. Mario Alessi testified that Rudy Guede, who has been convicted of being involved in Kercher's murder and serving a 16-year sentence, told him that Knox did not participate in the killing. Marco Castelluccio has also testified that Guede told him that Knox had nothing to do with the crime.

As part of her appeal, Knox hopes to prove that there is enough doubt to overturn her previous conviction. For example, some of the DNA samples were not able to be double tested because the samples were too small and similar evidence was not tested until six weeks after the murder. Once the testing is complete, forensic experts will present their analysis to a jury composed of two judges and six citizens.

Appealing a sentence and conviction is difficult without the advice and assistance of legal counsel. If you have been convicted of a crime, a knowledgeable appellate attorney will be to advise you on the appropriate issues for an appeal. Our South Carolina appellate attorneys are highly experienced in both state appeals and federal appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Tweet

Continue reading "Amanda Knox Appellate Hearing" »

The prosecution has rested in the Casey Anthony trial, and the defense moved for an acquittal, arguing that the state failed to meet its burden of proof. Under the law, the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. A criminal defendant does not carry a burden of proof, unless asserting an affirmative defense. Anthony's criminal trial lawyer argued that the prosecution had only proved that Caylee, Anthony's two year old daughter, was dead and that Casey Anthony had a history of telling lies. Cheney Mason, Anthony's criminal attorney, also pointed out to the court that prosecutors failed to prove that Anthony planned and carried out a premeditated murder, as required under the murder statute.

The trial court denied Anthony's motion, however, this issue is now preserved for her appeal, should she be convicted. In her appellate brief, Anthony's appellate lawyer can now argue that there was insufficient evidence at trial to convict her and that the trial court should have granted the motion. While the state introduced over 130 pieces of evidece during the trial, a great deal of the evidence against Anthony is circumstantial. This could be a very strong issue for her appeal in Florida.

Additionally, the state introduced a video displaying a picture of Caylee which ended showing her decomposed body. This video was so graphic that most news networks would not show it on television. This is another potenial issue for Anthony's appellate attorney to explore, what most people would refer to as her appeal lawyer. If the appellate lawyer can show that this evidence was soley admitted to inflame the jury, Anthony may be granted a new trial.

At this point in the trial, Anthony must decide whether to testify. I doubt she will take the stand, but will be interested to see what evidence is presented by the defense over the next few days.

Tweet

Continue reading "Casey Anthony Trial Reaches Midpoint" »

The following South Carolina Supreme Court opinion interprets the hearsay rule in trial. In this case the witness was cross examined on information provided during trial. The court interpreted the standard as an abuse of discretion by the trial court. May South Carolina Appeals are based on judicial error. The court went on to describe that prejudice occurs when there is reasonable probability that the wrongly admitted evidence influenced the jury's verdict. In trial, split decisions need to be made by the criminal defense lawyer. This case is the typical example of the defense lawyer in South Carolina making a quick decision on an evidence issue. Many times the decision will not matter because the trial judge has also made a quick decision and the appellate court must sort out the issue on appeal.
The full opinion is below.

Tweet

Continue reading "South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion on Hearsay Objection" »

On April 26, 2001, authorities were called to the home of Amy Hughes and her boyfriend, Lucas Bailey. A child was found dead at the scene and had noticeable trauma to the abdomen. An autopsy was performed and the doctor concluded that the child had been severely beaten in the abdomen and head, ultimately causing his death. A grand jury indicted Bailey for homicide by child abuse. The indictment stated that Bailey had inflicted physical injuries on the child, resulting in his death. Amy Hughes, Bailey's girlfriend and the victim's mother, testified that Bailey had cared for the child preceding the victim's death. She testified that early one morning, she heard a loud noise when Bailey was with the child and the child began to cry. Bailey and Hughes cared for the child and gave him cold medication, but he remained ill. When Hughes was returning from the store on the day of the incident, she found emergency personnel at her home. Hughes told authorities that Bailey had struck her child and caused his death. Bailey denied hitting the child and the case proceeded to trial.

At the trial, the jury was confused as to whether a conviction for homicide by child abuse required direct evidence that Bailey abused the child or whether neglect was enough. The jury could find no evidence presented that Bailey in fact harmed or abused the child. However, they did find the both Hughes and Bailey neglected the child by failing to provide adequate medical care. The judge explained that as long as the act or omission by Bailey was the proximate cause of the child's death, then that was enough to establish a conviction based on child abuse. The jury returned with a guilty verdict and Bailey was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment.

Bailey appealed his conviction, but the South Carolina Court of Appeals found that there was substantial circumstantial evidence that supported a finding that Bailey abused the child. Bailey then filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) application and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to object to certain jury instructions. A defendant has the right to an effective assistance of counsel based on the Sixth Amendment. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, the PCR applicant must prove (1) counsel's performance was deficient, and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. The PCR judge found that Bailey had not been prejudiced. Bailey appealed that finding to the Supreme Court of South Carolina. The Supreme Court found that since the indictment only alleged that Bailey physically abused the child, then that was all Bailey was required to defend against. When the judge informed the jury that it could find a conviction based on neglect, he erred because the indictment did not make any allegations that Bailey omitted performing an act. As such, Bailey's counsel was ineffective when she failed to object to the judge's erroneous instructions. Bailey was prejudiced by counsel's performance because it created a separate charge to which Bailey had to defend that was not mentioned within the indictment. The Court remanded for a new trial.

Continue reading "South Carolina Supreme Court Releases Opinion on Child Abuse Case" »

One year ago, Amanda Knox and her boyfriend were convicted of sexual assault and murder of Knox's roomate, Meredith Kercher. The prosecution relied heavily on DNA evidence and alleged the knife found at the scene was the murder weapon and had traces of both Knox's and the victim's DNA. Knox was sentenced by the lower court in Italy to 26 years in prison.

Both Knox and her boyfriend, a co-defendant in the case, appealed the validity of the DNA evidence. The Italian appellate court decided to allow an independent review of the DNA results presented at trial, which the defense argued was inconclusive. The court is also allowing new witnesses to support the defense's argument that the two defendants were not at the scene when the crime was committed. The next step in Knox's defense will depend on the results of the upcoming DNA testing which will likely take several months.

DNA evidence has continually served as an aid in criminal justice system's around the world in capturing and convicting criminals. However, there are certain techniques used in the collection and testing of DNA evidence and if this process is altered, the results could be inconclusive or completely wrong. Investigators have to be especially careful when collecting such evidence in order to make sure that innocent persons are not falsely accused. Usually, the defense counsel will request the judge to grant an independent review of the DNA evidence to ensure that the prosecution's results are accurate. The judge denied Knox's request to review the DNA evidence during her trial, which made it an arguable appellate issue.

It is vital that a defendant's trial attorney argue every probable issue so that if it is denied in the lower court, it can still be presented to the appellate court. The appellate court will usually not review issues that were not argued at the trial level. Further, if you do wish to appeal your case, then it is important to hire an experienced appellate lawyer. An appellate lawyer will be responsible for drafting a brief to the appellate court that presents any relevant issues that they believe were not properly addressed or ruled on in the lower court. However, the appellate court normally imposes a strict time limitation, so contact an attorney immediately to ensure you do not waive your right to file an appeal.

Continue reading "Judge Rules on Amanda Knox's Appeal" »

According to the South Carolina Judicial Department, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision in State v. Perry Keith Strickland. Strickland was previously convicted of voluntary manslaughter and ABHAN (assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature). He argued in his appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict. This type of motion is usually presented during a jury trial, where the presiding judge decides which side wins prior to a jury verdict. In Strickland's case, he believed that he had established self-defense as a matter of law; however, the Court of Appeals disagreed. They found that Strickland did not meet each of the four (4) requirements for an argument of self-defense and that the lower court followed correct procedure in submitting the case to the jury.

On several occasions in Strickland's trial, the testimony was contradictory as to the events that transpired. Allegedly, an argument occurred and Strickland and two (2) other males began fighting. The Court of Appeals found that the circumstances of this case could not be decided based solely on a matter of law, but by that of a jury that can interpret the facts. Therefore, the Court reasoned that the case was properly presented before a jury.

In this type of instance, it is important to hire an experienced appellate lawyer in South Carolina that can ensure that all of the issues on appeal are raised. Strickland was not able to prove his self-defense claim and as such, his appeal was affirmed. When reviewing the transcript of proceedings, an attorney should be able to advise you on the appropriate and non-frivolous issues that need to be addressed within your initial brief. Our South Carolina lawyers handle appeals on both the state and federal level and can assist you with your appeal.

Continue reading "Strickland Appeal Affirmed" »

The Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed and remanded a case for resentencing on July 12, 2010 involving a criminal sexual conduct charge. Nicholas Boan, the petitioner in the matter, had also been charged with two (2) counts of lewd act upon a child along with the instant offense. At sentencing the judge orally announced that Boan would receive twenty years for the first offense; however, the written sentencing order indicated he would serve thirty years. His trial counsel made no motions to this error and Boan's direct appeal was dismissed. Boan attempted to file a motion for post-conviction relief and it was denied.

In addressing this sentencing issue within a writ of certiorari, Boan alleged that he had been provided ineffective assistance of counsel since his counsel failed to respond to the sentencing discrepancy relating to his first offense. The Supreme Court found that this case, in fact, passed the two-pronged test in determining ineffective assistance. Boan showed that his counsel was deficient in failing to file a motion and also proved that this mistake prejudiced him as he would have likely been sentenced to a lesser term. The Court also reasoned that an oral pronouncement is binding over a written order since a Defendant's due process rights would be violated otherwise; meaning the Defendant has a right to be present during sentencing. As such, the Supreme Court ordered the first offense be remanded to the lower court for resentencing.

In this type of case, it is important for your appellate counsel to review the transcripts from the record below in order to determine if there are any issues that can be addressed on appeal. Our appellate attorneys in South Carolina are knowledgeable in these types of cases and can assist you in your appeal.

Continue reading "Writ of Certiorari" »

Kenneth Hinson won his federal appeal from a conviction for possessing a firearm by a convicted felon this year and has now be sentenced again by the federal judge who presided over the prior federal trial. The appellate victory was based on a sentencing error committed by the trial judge. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia reversed the sentence based on the trial judge using inappropriate prior conduct of the defendant to sentence him to a higher than applicable term of imprisonment. This case was taken to federal court after Hinson was acquitted of state charges related to kidnapping and sexual assault. Hinson's federal defense attorney was not listed in the news and did not provide any comment on the new sentence. The new sentence of less than 10 years is much better for Hinson than his prior sentence of 25 years.
Hinson was taken into federal custody in court after his acquittal on the state charges. This means the federal prosecutors where lying in wait to indictment him if he were found not guilty.
Hinson will now have the opportunity to appeal this sentence. His attorneys had argued in court that a 6 year sentence was the most the judge could give him. The case will go back to the Fourth Circuit Court Of Appeals in Richmond. Hinson's appellate attorney will have some time to draft the appeal and submit it to the Fourth.

Continue reading "Federal Defendant in Florence Sentenced AGAIN" »

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" »

Johnell Porter appealed his convictions for a list of crimes in relation to a robbery committed in York County (The State v. Johnell Porter). Mr. Porter submitted his appeal before the South Carolina Court of Appeals on March 1, 2010 and an opinion was published on April 5, 2010.

Allegedly, Mr. Porter along with his co-defendants robbed a bank located in York County. Witnesses identified the make and model of the getaway vehicle and the York County Sheriff’s Department was on high alert. An officer spotted the vehicle and noticed that the suspects were heading toward Charlotte, North Carolina. They were immediately arrested after the driver pulled into an apartment complex. Shortly thereafter, officers from the Charlotte Police Department arrived and the suspects were transferred to their custody. Officers located numerous items directly related to the robbery, so the suspects were extradited to York County.

Mr. Porter was charged with several different crimes that were all connected with the armed robbery conspiracy. He decided to represent himself pro se. Employees and customers from the bank could not verify the identity of the suspects because they were wearing ski masks, but “bait money” was located in the vehicle in question. Additionally, two co-defendants testified that Mr. Porter was involved in the robbery. As a result, the jury found him guilty on all counts and he was sentenced to life in prison.

The main issue involved in this case was determining whether the trial court erred in denying dismissal of the above charges due to the fact that Mr. Porter was arrested in North Carolina by South Carolina officers. The appellate court did not agree with Mr. Porter’s argument because he failed to present relevant authorities to support his claim. This is the reason that it is extremely important to retain a knowledgeable South Carolina defense attorney that has experience with appellate issues. Mr. Porter chose to represent himself pro se during his trial and as a result, he may have missed several key issues that were applicable for appeal. When the Court of Appeals reviews a case, it is only allowed to consider records in the court below, meaning the information available within the transcript of proceedings. Retaining an appellate attorney to represent you in a criminal appeal is vital to ensure that all potential issues and arguments are addressed in the initial brief.

Continue reading "Pro Se, Not the Right Way" »

In a recent opinion, United States v. Rivers, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit readdressed whether a conviction for failure to stop for a blue light in South Carolina constitutes a crime of violence under the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA"). In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Chambers, the Fourth Circuit held that this state crime does not qualify as an ACCA predicate.

Federal law prohibits previously convicted felons from possessing a firearm. Normally, under section 924 of the United States Code, a felon in possession of a firearm could receive a maximum sentence of up to ten years in prison. However, a defendant charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon with three prior convictions for a violent felony or a serious drug offense qualifies as an armed career criminal. As a result, the accused is subjected to a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen (15) years imprisonment. It is therefore important to inform your criminal defense attorney of any prior convictions when charged with any federal crime, especially a firearms offense.

The Fourth Circuit previously held in Roseboro that a conviction under South Carolina's failure to stop for a blue light satisfied the test established by the United States Supreme Court in Begay v. United States and qualified as a violent felony. The Roseboro court used the modified categorical approach to determine that the crime could constitute a violent felony if the underlying conduct included willful or intentional behavior. However, in Rivers, the court held that failure to stop for a blue light only contains one category of crime, so using the categorical approach outlined in Chambers, the court determined that this south carolina state conviction can never qualify as an ACCA predicate.

Prior convictions are routinely used in federal court to enhance a defendant's sentence. It is therefore important to contact an experienced federal attorney when facing a federal indictment.

Continue reading "Failure to Stop For a Blue Light No Longer a Crime of Violence Under the ACCA" »

Our firm files several federal appeals each year and our appellate attorneys have just won another case. This was a federal appeal based on a sentencing error by the trial judge. This appellate decision brings to light just how many errors can be committed during the sentencing face of a federal case. Below is the opinion of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4830
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KELVIN JEROD HOLMAN, a/k/a J-Five,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (5:04-cr-00964-MBS-2)
Submitted: October 22, 2009 Decided: November 13, 2009
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Russell W. Mace, III, THE MACE FIRM, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, Stacey D. Haynes, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Case: 08-4830 Document: 31 Date Filed: 11/13/2009 Page: 1
PER CURIAM:
Kelvin Jerod Holman timely appeals from the 360-month sentence imposed after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2006). On appeal, Holman argues that the district court erred in applying the two-level sentence enhancement, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 3B1.1(c) (2007), and that his sentence is unreasonable. We affirm Holman’s conviction, but vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing.
Holman first asserts that the district court erred in applying the two-level sentence enhancement, pursuant to USSG § 3B1.1(c), for his role in the conspiracy. Holman urges us to review the district court’s imposition of the sentence enhancement for clear error. Generally, “[a] district court’s findings regarding sentence enhancement are factual in nature and are reviewed only for clear error.” United States v. Carter, 300 F.3d 415, 426 (4th Cir. 2002). However, where the defendant failed to object to the enhancement in the district court, this court reviews for plain error. United States v. Wells, 163 F.3d 889, 900 (4th Cir. 1998). Upon review of the sentencing hearing transcript, it appears that Holman did not object to the USSG § 3B1.1(c) sentence enhancement; his only
2 Case: 08-4830 Document: 31 Date Filed: 11/13/2009 Page: 2
objections were to the amount of drugs attributed to him in the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”). Thus, we review for plain error.
To demonstrate plain error, a defendant must show that: (1) there was an error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected his “substantial rights.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). We are not required to correct a plain error unless “a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result,” meaning that “the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 736 (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citations omitted).
Pursuant to USSG § 3B1.1(c), a two-level increase to the defendant’s base offense level is warranted “[i]f the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor” in the charged offense and the offense involved less than five participants. The adjustment applies if the defendant organized, led, managed, or supervised one or more participants. USSG § 3B1.1, cmt. n.2. The Guidelines identify the following factors courts should use to distinguish between leaders, organizers, managers, supervisors and other participants:
the exercise of decision making authority, the nature of participation in the commission of the offense, the recruitment of accomplices, the claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime, the degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense,
3 Case: 08-4830 Document: 31 Date Filed: 11/13/2009 Page: 3
the nature and scope of the illegal activity, and the degree of control and authority exercised over others.
USSG § 3B1.1, cmt. n.4.
Holman contends that the district court erroneously relied on disputed facts in the PSR in assessing the enhancement. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) requires the district court to “make a finding with respect to each objection a defendant raises to facts contained in a presentence report before it may rely on the disputed fact in sentencing.” United States v. Morgan, 942 F.2d 243, 245 (4th Cir. 1991). However, in doing so, the district court is permitted to “expressly adopt the recommended findings contained in the presentence report.” Id. When the district court takes this approach, “it must make clear on the record that it has made an independent finding and that its finding coincides with the recommended finding in the presentence report.” Id.
Here, the district court stated that “we have an adjustment for role, which is a plus two” and later adopted the findings of fact in the PSR as the reasons for the sentence. In the PSR, the probation officer relied on paragraphs 17, 19, and 54 in applying the USSG § 3B1.1(c) enhancement. While there is no mention of an objection to paragraph 54, Holman asserts that he objected to paragraphs 17 and 19. Our review of the sentencing transcript reveals that Holman only objected to
4 Case: 08-4830 Document: 31 Date Filed: 11/13/2009 Page: 4
paragraph 19, and only to the extent that he disagreed with the drug amounts attributed to him. The district court resolved that objection, stating that “the court will not use . . . the testimony . . . with regard to counting the drug weights.” Because Holman failed to object to any information in the PSR with respect to the sentence enhancement, the district court properly adopted the undisputed findings in the PSR, as permitted by Morgan, and could rely on those findings in assessing the enhancement.
Holman, however, relying on our decision in United States v. Chambers, 985 F.2d 1263, 1269 (4th Cir. 1993), also contends that the district court failed to apply the factors in USSG § 3B1.1, cmt. n.4 or provide specific reasons for applying the enhancement. In Chambers, we vacated the district court’s sentence and remanded for further proceedings because, “without specific factual findings showing that the district court evaluated the defendant’s role in the offense in light of the factors in [USSG § 3B1.1] application note 3[1], we cannot conduct meaningful appellate review of this issue.” Id. We instructed the district court to apply the above factors to determine whether the defendant’s role in the conspiracy
1 Now application note 4.
5 Case: 08-4830 Document: 31 Date Filed: 11/13/2009 Page: 5 6
warranted a sentence enhancement, and if so, note which factors justified the decision. Id.
2 Because we conclude that the district court erred in failing to address the USSG § 3B1.1, cmt. n.4 factors and remand for further proceedings on that issue, we need not consider Holman’s alternative challenge to the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
We find that, while the district court properly adopted the findings of fact in the PSR, it erred by failing to specifically apply the USSG § 3B1.1, cmt. n.4 factors to those findings to determine whether Holman’s role warranted the two-level enhancement. Because the sentence imposed was greater than that to which Holman would have been subject absent the error, we further conclude that the error affected Holman’s substantial rights. See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 548 (4th Cir. 2005). Therefore, we vacate Holman’s sentence and remand for the district court to consider the above factors to determine whether the sentence enhancement is justified.2
Accordingly, we affirm Holman’s conviction, but vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED

Our appellate attorneys are available to represent clients nationwide in federal court.

The Fourth Circuit is widely considered as the most conservative appellate court in the United States. However, it is also the most efficient, the Fourth Circuit usually issues its decisions within seven months after the initial brief and the government's answer brief is filed.

The court hears appeals from the District of Maryland, Eastern District of North Carolina, Middle District of North Carolina, Western District of North Carolina, the District of South Carolina, Eastern District of Virginia, Western District of Virginia, Northern District of West Virginia, and the Southern District of West Virginia. The Courthouse is located in Richmond, Virginia. There are 15 judgeships, 10 active judges, one senior judge who continues to hear cases part time, and two retired judges who no longer hear cases.

When an appellate attorney receives oral arguments on a case, each side gets twenty minutes to argue their side to a panel of three Judges, and each Judge may ask questions relating the issues presented in your brief. A three light timer is used to monitor each side. When the light is green, counsel may begin, when only five minutes remain, the green light is changed to a yellow light, when the five minutes expire, the red light appears, signaling that counsel is out of time.

As a mater of tradition, the Fourth Circuit Judges come down from the bench after each oral argument to greet the appellate lawyers and to thank them for their advocacy.

Continue reading "Oral Arguments in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit" »

The Fourth Circuit has recognized that alienage is an improper basis for a sentence and violates due process. The Sentencing Guidelines also expressly prohibit a sentencing court from considering a defendant's national origin when calculating a term of imprisonment. In U.S. v. Salama, the Fourth Circuit held that it was harmless error for district court to comment about the defendant's alien status based on the particular facts of the case, however, the appellate court did note that the remarks were inappropriate. In U.S. v. Munoz, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit determined that a district court could consider a defendant's background, characteristics and conduct, thus, a court may refer to a defendant's alienage. For example, a court may make a reference to a defendant's national origin to deter similar criminal conduct by others of the same ethnic background, as long as alienage is not the basis of the sentence. The Munoz Court held that the connection between the targeted group for deterrence and the individual being sentenced must be the offense conduct and not the individual's national origin.

This issue will again be examined by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in its December 2009 term. It will be interesting to see how the appellate court treats alien status as a factor in sentencing proceedings in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Booker. Other Circuit Courts, like the Second Circuit and Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, have held that even the appearance that a sentence reflects a defendant's race, national origin, or alienage requires that the sentence be reversed. In the initial brief and reply brief, the appellant argues that the Fourth Circuit should adopt a similar rule. The government argues in its appellate brief that any error was harmless.

In Federal cases, a defendant is sentenced in a separate court hearing that is set well after a guilty plea or guilty verdict after a jury trial. During this hearing, the district court calculates a defendant's guideline range, address objections to the pre-sentence investigation report, decides whether any sentencing enhancements are appropriate, and if a downward or upward departure should be granted. Federal sentencing proceedings are complicated and as a result, the District Court often commits reversible error during these proceedings. The appellate court will reverse a defendant's sentencing when the District Court improperly applies the law or violates a defendant's constitutional rights.

When filing a federal appeal, an appellate lawyer uses case law precedent of the Circuit Court and U.S. Supreme Court to argue the defendant's position. However, in cases that present an issue that has not been addressed in that particular court of appeals, a federal appellate attorney will cite cases from other circuit courts to support their argument. It will be interesting to see what questions the Fourth Circuit will ask at oral arguments in Richmond, VA in December, and whether the Fourth Circuit will join the Second and Eighth Circuit in holding that even the appearance of ethnic or racial bias by a district court when imposing a sentence is unconstitutional, which would require a reversal and remand for a new sentencing hearing.

Continue reading "Fourth Circuit to Address Alien Status as Factor in Sentencing" »

In a recent opinion out of the District of South Carolina in Charleston, Chief Judge Norton issued an opinion stating that Failure to Stop for a Blue Light is not a crime of violence, even if the state court indictment includes the word "intentional" or "willful." Most appellate attorneys practicing in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agree this opinion appears to conflict with the Roseboro decision decided this past January in the Fourth Circuit. In that case, the appellate court determined that failure to stop for a blue light was not a crime of violence when applying the test established in Begay because the statute included negligent and intentional conduct. However, the Fourth Circuit in Roseboro also held that a district court in a federal sentencing could find that South Carolina's failure to stop for a blue light was a crime of violence if based on willful conduct. The Court of Appeals concluded that intentionaly failing to stop after being signaled to do so was inherently dangerous and could qualify a crime of violence for sentencing purposes pursuant to the ACCA and the career offender provision of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.

In the Johnson opinion, Chief Judge Norton argues that failure to stop for a blue light does not qualify as a crime of violence under the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA") in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Begay. When examining the South Carolina statute, it does not require intentional conduct and is closer to a strict liability crime, a defendant's mens rea is not an element of the crime. Failure to stop for a blue light is also not similar in degree and risk to the crimes of burglary, extortion, arson, or crimes involving explosives. The offense does not always involve purposeful, aggressive, and violent.

This opinion could greatly affect federal sentencing in the District of South Carolina. Many federal attorneys in South Carolina have clients who have pled guilty to failure to stop for a blue light. Federal criminal lawyers know that if a defendant has three or more prior convictions that constitute a serious drug offense or a violent felony could possibly be sentenced as an armed career criminal, and as a result, could face a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years in prison. A good criminal attorney will now argue at sentencing that failure to stop for a blue light no longer qualifies as a predicate offense under the ACCA, even if the state court indictment includes the word 'intentional' or 'willful.'

Continue reading "Chief District Judge Addresses Failure to Stop for a Blue light under Begay" »

Once a person is convicted of a felony crime in the Court of General Sessions, they have ten (10) days to file a Notice of Appeal in South Carolina. All appeals from General Sessions are directed to the Supreme Court. If the case is non-capital, the court may decide to transfer it to The Court of Appeals. If the party is incarcerated, they may be eligible for bail, depending on the judge’s ruling and the severity of the offense. However, bail will not be granted if the convicted party has been sentenced to death, life imprisonment or more than ten (10) years in prison.

When the South Carolina Court of Appeals reviews a case, it is only allowed to consider records in the court below. An appellate attorney would be able to determine the circumstances of a case that are appealable to the court by reviewing the transcript of proceedings. The appellate attorney would file an initial brief with the court, which includes relevant issues of the case for the court to review. When the court hears the case, they may decide to affirm the sentence and conviction, meaning that there are no errors of law substantial enough to reverse the decision of the lower court. The court can also reverse the judgment of the court below, which could possibly result in a new trial.

If the party is dissatisfied with the ruling in the Court of Appeals, they have an option to file a petition for the Supreme Court of South Carolina to review the decision. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction and reviews rulings of law reached by lower courts at trial or on appeal. While reviewing a particular case, the Supreme Court takes into account the transcript of proceedings before the lower court and briefs filed by each party’s attorney. During some instances the court grants oral arguments, which is also one of the key factors in its decision.

A convicted party’s retained trial attorney has an obligation to notify his/her client of their right to appeal. The attorney also has a duty to file the notice of appeal if their client wishes to appeal the conviction and sentence. When a party files a notice of appeal, it is important to seek the advice of a South Carolina appellate attorney to determine the correct procedure involved in filing an appeal in South Carolina.

Continue reading "South Carolina Appeals" »

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal in Richmond, Virginia is set to have several judges retire in the coming year. With this in mind President Obama will have the opportunity to appoint new Appellate Judges to fill the positions. The Fourth Circuit covers all federal appeals from South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia and Maryland. It is also one of the most conservative courts in the country. The Fourth Circuit is generous about giving oral arguments to appellate attorneys compared to other appellate jurisdictions. The court has been filled by Republican candidates for many years. The new court will consist of many Obama appointees.

The Chief Judge retired earlier this year because of an early diagnosis of Alzheimers disease. This was a shock as Judge Williams was quiet young. Judge Traxler will be the new Chief Judge for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit covers the Southeastern section of the United States. The Eleventh Circuit comes in to exert jurisdiction over Georgia and Florida. Many decisions from the Fourth Circuit have bee harsh on defendants in federal indictments. Many appeals for criminal cases are given quick decisions by the court. Appellate attorneys in South Carolina have had several Fourth Circuit judges in past from their home state. The new judges will more likely come from Virginia and Maryland which tend to be more Democratic based.

Continue reading "Fourth Circuit Appellate Court to Change Judges" »

In United States v. Cameron, appellate number 08-4277, the defendant was convicted of three counts of uttering counterfeited obligations and one count of falsely making and counterfeiting obligations of the United States. The appellant, through his appellate attorney, challenged his conviction of falsely making and counterfeiting obligations in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 471. The defendant's appellate lawyer argued that the government failed to present an evidence that he actually used a computer to manufacture counterfeit bills, that there was no evidence presented at trial about the details of the counterfeiting operation, only one counterfeit image was found on his sister's computer, his sister's printer was never recovered, and that his fingerprints were found on a small portion of the evidence seized from his home.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals relied on the circumstantial evidence presented by the government linking the appellant to manufacturing the bills, the testimony of an FBI agent who matched the serial number on the counterfeit computer image to a bill found in the defendant's home and held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction.

However, the Fourth Circuit reversed the appellant's sentence, finding that the evidence was insufficient to support the four level enhancement he received for being a leader or organizer of a counterfeiting operation. Pursuant to 3B1.1(a) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, a person is subjected to this leadership enhancement if he was the leader or organizer of criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive. The defendant must actual have a leadership role over another participant.

The Fourth Circuit noted that there was no evidence that the appellant planned, or organized the criminal activity, and more importantly, there was no evidence that he exercised any control or authority over the other participants, recruited other accomplices, or that he claimed any or a large share of the profits of the criminal activity.

This opinion suggests that a defendant must have more of a leadership role than manufacturing counterfeit bills to qualify for the four level enhancement. This opinion also reinforces the view that a sentencing court must usually find that a defendant actually had control over another participant in the criminal activity.

Continue reading "Printing Counterfeit Bills Insufficient to Support a Leadership Enhancement" »

In recent news it has been confirmed that Justice Souter, a United States Supreme Court Judge, will be retiring in the next few weeks. The media is already speculating about President Obama's potential nominees. Although the U.S. Supreme Court hears only a select number of cases each year, these cases often have a profound effect on the legal system across the country.

For example, when the Court ruled in Booker v. United States that the United States Sentencing Guidelines were no longer mandatory, th sentencing methods in Federal Court were drastically changed. District Court Judges were no longer bound by the guidelines and were free to give a "reasonable" sentence after considering the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a). In United States v. Kimbrough, the court addressed the crack cocaine ratio and the disparity it created in sentencing.

In South Carolina, a federal case begins in the District of South Carolina. South Carolina has one district with several divisions, including Florence, Aiken, Spartanburg, Columbia, Charleston, and Greenville. If a defendant wishes to appeal a conviction and sentence in the District Court of South Carolina, it must be filed in the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit hears cases from all of the district courts in Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Maryland.
Once an opinion is issued in the Fourth Circuit, a defendant has the option to file a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.

Appellate attorneys in South Carolina and across the country will be paying close attention to Obama's Supreme Court nomination.

The Court of Appeals in South Carolina in State v. Williams has ruled that the exclusion of several convictions of a confidential informant could not have reasonably affected the the outcome of the trials. The court held that it was harmless error to exclude the prior convictions of the informant, including armed robbery, larceny, forgery and housebreaking.

In the Federal system, confidential informants are often key witnesses who testify on behalf of the government. They are used in the state system as well. Most confidential informants have prior records are are working with local law enforcement to shave time off their convictions. Therefore, evidence of the confidential informant's prior convictions can often show the jury that they are in fact biased.

A good federal criminal defense attorney can impeach these witnesses to show they are untrustworthy through the evidence of their prior convictions. A federal defense lawyer can also show the jury that many of these confidential informants are paid by law enforcement to purchase drugs.

In South Carolina, Federal Courts are located in Greenville, Columbia, Florence, Charleston, Anderson, Rock Hill, and Spartanburg. All of these divisions are part of the District of South Carolina. If you have been indicted with a federal crime, you will need to hire an experienced federal attorney in Myrtle Beach, Charleston, Columbia or Florence.

Continue reading "Confidential Informant's Credibility in Cocaine Distribution Case at Issue" »

O.J. Simpson's case is now headed for the appellate courts of Nevada. His motions for a new trial were denied this week and he is going to need a very good appellate attorney to file a brief and argue his case. O.J. has yet to be sentenced by the trial judge. If he is given a small prison sentence he may not aggressively appeal his case. O.J.'s criminal defense lawyers have already raised several issues that will be addressed by a good appellate attorney.

One of the first issues that was raised related to the jurors bias towards O.J.. The jury selection process gives attorneys the opportunity to have jurors hear a case without any preconcieved opinions about the defendant or the case. In O.J.'s case there are allegations that many jurors had strong opinions about O.J. and his prior murder trial. The opinions of jurors affect the trial process and prohibit an unbiased review of the evidence that is presented in trial. This issue can be a basis for a reversal of O.J.'s conviction. A good appellate attorney will be able to provide ample case law to support the appeal related to jury selection and information that jurors may not have provided in the initial voir dire.

Our office practices appellate law in federal courts and state courts. Our Federal Appellate Attorney is more than capable in many jurisdictions. We also offer appeals in South Carolina, Georgia and Florida.

Continue reading "O.J. Simpson Goes to the Appellate Courts" »