This week’s Nashville cheeseburger review takes us to downtown Nashville . Brandon’s has been a downtown lunch spot for years . I always enjoy eating there for lunch so it was time for a formal review . I cozied up to the bar when Jeff came by to get my order . For some
Pennsylvania DUI attorney Justin McShane has moved to the front of criminal defense attorneys in using forensic science to attack the state’s case. Here is a short video he produced illustrating the need to have the machine calibrated . Justin also writes a blog on forensic science issues .His commentary is on target as
South Carolina criminal defense attorney Bobby Frederick recently reported of Horry County , South Carolina public defenders who don’t go to preliminary hearings . It appears the public defenders refuse to go to court on preliminary hearings . The court refuses to hear their case because they have a court appointed attorney and the hearing
I have been remiss on keeping up with my weekly cheeseburger quest. Stuff like murder trials and other duties just got in the way. When I first started this wacky food adventure , I had two burger joints in mind that was going to win hands down . First was Brown’s Diner which was solid.
In the recent edition of The Champion , Dr . Demosthenes Lorandos wrote a fascinating article summarizing the integration of science and law in the defense of Tonya Craft . Ms. Craft was charged in 22 counts of sexually abusing three different little girls . The cost of her defense was over $ 500,000.00. A
Shaun Martin and Scott Greenfield have recently commented on most criminal courts’ problem in explaining what is beyond a reasonable doubt . Proof " Beyond A Reasonable Doubt " is the most important protections that a citizen is given in facing criminal charges .Yet , it is the hardest to explain to jurors and even to other lawyers . I am not aware of any jury instruction that adequately explains the concept.
The current debate of the definition of " Beyond A Reasonable doubt " was sparked by a recent case in the great state of California . California’s a hotbed of traditional criminal jurisprudence . A temporary judge began with a series of examples of what beyond a reasonable doubt means . The defendant was convicted and appealed . At the appellate level , the defendant argued that the trial court’s examples lowered the state’s burden of proof by his examples . The California Court of Appeals upheld the conviction . They cited some persuasive authority . In the opinion , the court reminds the trial court to be careful in giving examples . They cite the legal scholars John Lennon and Paul McCartney . The California Court’s suggestion is " To Let It Be" .Here’s Tennessee’s instruction on reasonable doubt .Notice the omission of the term beyond.
T.P.I. — CRIM. 2.03
REASONABLE DOUBT
Reasonable doubt is that doubt engendered by an investigation of all the proof in the case and an inability, after such investigation, to let the mind rest easily as to the certainty of guilt. Reasonable doubt does not mean a doubt that may arise from possibility. Absolute certainty of guilt is not demanded by the law to convict of any criminal charge, but moral certainty is required, and this certainty is required as to every proposition of proof requisite to constitute the offense.
One frequently asked question about Tennessee drunk driving laws is why am I being charged with two violations . Most police officers only charge one drunk driving violation in the original arrest warrant . Once the case is presented to the Grand Jury , the prosecutors often add an additional charge if a blood or
The Tennessee State Legislature is on the march to wipe out the exclusionary rule in this year’s session . A hearing was held last week . A Nashville Assistant District Attorney General testified during the committee meeting . The discussion centered on a technical error in the search warrant which was later held to be invalid .Criminal defense lawyers are worried that the Legislature is going to wipe out the exclusionary rule .
The exclusionary rule is used to refer to the exclusion of evidence because it was obtained by law enforcement officials in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or some provision of the Bill of Rights. The exclusionary rule prohibits the state from using evidence obtained in violation of of four constitutional rights :
Tennessee first recognized the the validity of excluding evidence in violation of the Tennessee Constitution as early as 1922 . Mapp v. Ohio is the case where the U.S. Supreme Court applied the exclusionary rule for the first time.Continue Reading An Attack On the Excluisonary Rule
Lack of discovery sometimes leads to the image we see above. One of my major gripes with the criminal justice system is the limited discovery that is granted in criminal cases . In Part II of Criminal Discovery in Tennessee criminal law cases , we will cover Reports of Examinations and Tests
No time for blog posts for awhile . I was in a first degree murder trial last week . I learned a few time honored lessons in the courtroom . Dress for success still applies in a criminal jury trial .
Here are a few tips :