Recent Blog Posts

COURT APPOINTED vs PRIVATE ATTORNEYS

Richmond Criminal Defense Lawyer — Tue, 15 May 2012 14:20:00 GMT

One of the first questions a court asks a person accused of a crime is whether the defendant wants to hire his own attorney. Many people do not know the difference between a court appointed lawyer and a public defender. Others wonder whether they should use an attorney appointed by the court or focus their resources to hire an attorney of their choice.

Indigent criminal defendants are entitled to have a lawyer appointed at the expense of the federal or state court. Some state jurisdictions in Virginia have a public defender's office and other jurisdictions do not. State public defenders are paid a salary and will handle every case involving an indigent criminal defendant unless there is a conflict of interest. Some legal experts believe that our public defenders are overworked and underpaid.

Court appointed lawyers have agreed to represent indigent criminal defendants. The court, not the defendant choses which attorney to appoint to each case. Virginia state court appointed lawyers are among the lowest paid indigent criminal defense attorneys in America. In 2007, the New York Times published a study that found that the average sentence for clients of court appointed or public defenders was almost three years longer than the sentences of clients represented by private lawyers.

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees an individual the right to select counsel of his own choice. A person that hires a lawyer has an opportunity to chose an attorney that is well suited to the case at hand. Exercising this right allows for a lawyer client relationship where both lawyer and client work together because they have chosen each other.

If you or someone you know are in need of experienced legal representation after being accused of a DUI, drug crime or violent crime in the Richmond area, contact a Richmond criminal defense attorney to properly address your case right away.

Trayvon Martin and Self Defense in Virginia

Richmond Criminal Defense Lawyer — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:16:00 GMT

The outrage over the shooting death of a Florida teen continues to grow. As a parent and an American I join in that outrage. As an attorney I somberly recognize that it might be difficult to obtain a conviction with Florida's strange variation of the law of self-defense. An interesting question is, "could this happen here ?".

In Virginia you have to prove you did everything you could before using deadly force. Virginia lawyers learn in law school that, "The law of self -defense is the law of necessity." To assert this defense a Virginia homicide defendant implicitly admits the killing was intentional and assumes the burden of introducing evidence of justification or excuse that raises a reasonable doubt in the minds of the court. Virginia recognizes two types of self-defense homicide theories. Justifiable homicide occurs where a person, without any fault on his part in provoking or bringing on the difficulty, kills another under reasonable apprehension of death or great bodily harm to himself. An excusable homicide exists where the "accused, although in some fault in the first instance in provoking or bringing on the difficulty, when attacked retreats as far as possible, announces his desire for peace, and kills his adversary from a reasonably apparent necessity to preserve his own life or save himself from great bodily harm.

As a result in Virginia, the shooter in the Martin matter would face significant legal issues. First, he would likely have to demonstrate that he had no fault or retreated as far as possible. Second whatever defense he presented would need to be brought up as an affirmative defense in trial.

I cannot competently comment on the application of the Florida law to the facts at issue. I can only say that the limited facts that have been made available to the public indicate that the shooter would almost certainly be charged with some degree of homicide in Virginia. The shooter has a constitutional right to refrain from ever discussing this matter again. Trayvon cannot tell his version of what happened. Sadly our desire to have this matter brought to justice or even explained may never be satiated.

What do I do if I am under investigation but I haven't been charged

Richmond Criminal Defense Lawyer — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:35:00 GMT

Often for strategic reasons law enforcement agencies will chose not to arrest an individual that is suspected of committing a crime. Usually, the officers use the time between development of a suspect and arrest to "build" a case. Persons under investigation mistakenly believe that by cooperating they can convince police or prosecutors of their innocence. Another wrong belief is that police will forget about a case or get too busy to pursue a suspect.

On many occasions, I have seen people attempt to talk their way out of an arrest only to succeed in strengthening the government's case against them. Police agencies are collectively very good at what they do. Pre-arrest they are largely unconstrained in the limits to which they may go to pursue evidence of a crime. Pre-arrest an individual does not have an absolute right to an attorney. The playing field for police investigating a target does not start to balance toward the individual until he is arrested. After arrest attorneys can use the courts to shield their clients from the police.

Persons under suspicion often foolishly believe that they can outmaneuver hundreds of years of proven police strategy and millions of dollars of governmental resources. Amateurish attempts to "throw [police] off of your trail " inevitably backfire.

Sometimes police don't have enough information to charge a suspect. In those instances a suspect's statements to police can be the final evidence necessary to seal a conviction. In other scenarios, police have adequate information to charge a suspect. There conviction is inevitable and cooperation may be the only way for a suspect to avoid lengthy incarceration. The difference between these two situations is crucial. An experienced criminal defense attorney will recognize that difference.

I aggressively defend my clients rights during an investigation. My years of experience leave me with an ability to assess the strength of an investigation as it progresses. Targeted individuals need qualified counsel.

Ten Common Police Tactics

Richmond Criminal Defense Lawyer — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 02:35:00 GMT

As a former prosecutor, I am keenly aware of the tools police use to acquire convictions. The most important and effective evidence in any criminal case is a confession. As a result good police detectives, federal agents and investigators will use an arsenal of time tested techniques to get suspects to speak with them. These tricks of he trade may seem sneaky but they are completely legal and ethical. Be conscious of the following :

1. GOOD COP #1 - If an officer tells you that you are not under arrest but he "just wants to talk to you." Your right to counsel does not commence until you are under a formal arrest. Crafty officers will try to questions suspects before "arresting" them.

2. YOU'RE FREE TO LEAVE- Generally when you are free to leave you should. If an officer invites you to his office and "just wants to hear your side of things" something is usually up.

3. GOOD COP #2 - Officers begin many interrogations with compliments. They may say that you were "brave" or that he understands why you took the actions at issue. At trial, no court will care why you said something. The court will only consider what you say to the officer.

4. BACKGROUND INFO - Smart officers will ask a suspect to tell him his address, birthday, where he went to school etc. In reality law enforcement has a plethora of tools to get this banal information. This is a technique used to make a suspect conformable and willing to give additional information.

5. CAN I BUY YOU A DRINK ? - Officers will offer you a drink or food prior to questions to loosen you up. This doesn't work in a nightclub. Don't let them play you.

6. BOLD FACE LIES- Officers are legally and ethically allowed to lie to you during questioning. For example: "your codefendant already told us everything" or "we found your DNA at the scene." Bogus. Think about it. If they had your DNA or a full confession from a co-defendant why would they need additional statements from you.

7. "JUST ONE MORE THING" An officer will often ask a suspect a question based in information he doesn't have. For example: "If we test the (rape) victim will we find your DNA ?" The officer just wants to see the suspect's reaction. It's a no win situation. If the suspect answers "no" the officer will not stop asking questions. If the suspect equivocates the officer will see that as consciousness of guilt.

10. "HAVE YOU STOPPED BEATING YOUR WIFE" Loaded questions. Also in the vein of no win interrogatories is the calculated question. Savvy officers will beguile their way into a search without probable cause. A seemingly easy question that corners you into a tricky second question. E.g. "You don't have any drugs on you do you." is followed by "Well then you wont mind if I search."

There are times where police have clear authority under the Fourth Amendment to search an individual without his permission. However the Fifth Amendment is absolute. As a result, in America citizens NEVER have to speak with the police.

In most circumstances a person will not lessen his criminal exposure by participating in a police interview. When approached by police it is within your rights to clearly tell them you don't want to speak with them. If a person is under arrest he can stop questioning by demanding the presence of an attorney.

If you find yourself in a situation where police are demanding answers and you feel threatened please do not hesitate to consider contacting a qualified attorney.

What to do if you're falsely accused

Richmond Criminal Defense Lawyer — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:35:00 GMT

19th century English lawyer Sir William Borrow introduced the phrase "innocent until proven guilty", The problem with this phrase is that it implies that although criminal defendant starts a trial presumed innocent he will inevitably be proven guilty. Although the American criminal justice system works in most cases, the system is comprised of people and people make mistakes The best way to avoid such an unjust result and ensure the proper outcome when faced with criminal accusations is to immediately seek counsel from the best criminal defense attorneys available.

Being falsely accused of a crime does not change the way the prosecution handles your case. The prosecution does not presume you are innocent. If your have been charged with an offense and have a scheduled court date, the prosecutor believes you are guilty and will proceed against you with the full force and power of the state. A defendant should never believe that because he or she is innocent and has nothing to hide, there is no need for the best legal representation.

I have heard people say that they are not guilty of a charged offense and thus don't need a "good" lawyer. This position is ridiculous. Any novice attorney can accept a guilty plea. There is a greater need for legal advocacy in the case of an individual who did not do what he or she is charged with doing.

A person falsely accused of committing a crime faces greater challenges than a guilty criminal defendant. A guilty defendant can assist his lawyer by accurately describing the circumstances that lead to his charge. An innocent client often knows nothing of the accused crime. A falsely accused person may wish to explain his story to the police. This is often the worst thing he can do. Police often don't record conversations with accused persons. When an officer repeats your statements in court he may only remember the portions that support his theory of the case.

There are many frequent scenarios where the police charge the wrong or an innocent person: occupants of a car where drugs are found; alleged date-rape cases; unsolved murders; robberies with a cross-cultural misidentification; conspiracy charges; burglary. Some of these instances involve people in the wrong place at the wrong time, sometimes police identify the wrong suspect.

If you face the prospect of trial for a crime you did not convict, you have the greatest need for an experienced Richmond criminal defense attorney of your choice. Please contact me if you need assistance.

Common Defenses

Richmond Criminal Defense Attorney — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 22:11:00 GMT

To be found guilty a defendant must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant has an opportunity to present a defense. Most of the time criminal defendant's say "I didn't do it" or "I did it, but...." There are very specific ways the these positions should be raised in court.

All people accused of a crime are legally presumed to be innocent until they are convicted. As a result, a prosecutor must convince the court (judge or jury) that the defendant is guilty AND that the defendant does not have to present a defense. Often a competent trial attorney may ask that his client remain silent, not present any witnesses, and the prosecutor failed to prove his or her case. Many defendants wrongfully believe that they should present their argument or testify to defend themselves. Although every defendant has an absolute right to elicit such a position, in most situations that tactic will hurt their case rather than help. An alibi defense if a situation where defense presentation of evidence is absolutely crucial. In an alibi situation, a defendant asserts that he was somewhere other than the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. It is important to remember that criminal discovery rules impose a different burden on the defendant if he presents an alibi.

In some situations, the defendant has committed an action that appears to be criminal but the law will justify or excuse the behavior. The most common instance of this defense is "self-defense.". Self defense is usually implied in crimes of violence, such as battery, assault with a deadly weapon, or murder. Again, there is a nuance necessary to presenting such a position. An experienced trial attorney will address: who was the aggressor, whether the defendant's belief that self-defense was necessary a reasonable one, and whether reasonable force was used.

Drug possession cases also involve another scenario where a person appears to have committed an offense but the law requires an acquittal. Frequently this occurs when police have discovered a person to be in possession of drugs but that discovery is the result of an illegal search or seizure. Illegal searches and seizures require a court to suppress or "throw out" illegally collected evidence. Without this evidence even if a person is clearly in possession of contraband, the court will be forced to find the defendant not guilty.

Procedural errors may occasionally result in dismissal. Some small errors may cause the court to disregard small portions of evidence but still allow a case to proceed. Other errors are so inconsequential that courts will ignore them. However, some procedures are constitutionally or statutorily required. Mistakes in these procedures may result in a court finding a defendant not guilty. Experienced trial lawyers carefully comb through evidence and the process to make sure all of a defendants rights have been safeguarded. As a former prosecutor, I know what the police and prosecutors are supposed to do. This perspective gives me an ability to know when a mistake has been made.

Although illegal searches and self defense are valid positions, many other excuses frequently fail. In Virginia. Defendants who commit crimes under the influence of drugs or alcohol sometimes argue that their mental functioning was so impaired that they cannot be held accountable for their actions. Voluntary intoxication however does not excuse criminal conduct. Courts may more severely punish a person for breaking laws aided by alcohol. Likewise, the defense of entrapment rarely succeeds. If the Court believes that a suspect was predisposed to commit the crime the court will disregard evidence that a government agent suggested the crime and helped the defendant to commit it.

The ability to discern the quality of potential defenses in a criminal case is one of the most crucial skills an experienced trial attorney can bring to a case. There is simply no substitute for years of trial experience. Some judges accept certain defenses while other may reject the same argument. I have practiced in more than twenty different jurisdictions and tried thousands of cases. Please contact me if you want to discuss whether one of these defenses might be useful in your case.

Don't Carelessly Plead to First Offense Marijuana Charge

Vaughan C. Jones — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:09:00 GMT

In Virginia, every first drug offense is eligible for a dismissal upon completion of probation. This type of dismissal happens hundreds of time every week in every court in the Richmond area. Some charged persons freely accept that this resolution is their only choice when they are charged withpossession of marijuana. I always tell clients that a dismissal pursuant to these terms is not as good as a finding of Not Guilty for several reasons. First, dismissal requires a period of supervised probation and ongoing drug testing. Second this result includes a 6 month suspension of license. Third, a dismissal requires payment of Court costs, drug testing fees, and lab tests.

Citizens should be aware that the first offense dismissal options are available to courts even if a person pleads not guilty. A court may enter such a result even over the objection of a prosecutor. In other words, often there is no benefit to giving up your right to fight a drug charge. Additionally, if a person has previously had a first offense dismissal, that person is never eligible to have that resolution again.

There are many ways to fight marijuana cases. Virginia recently passed a law allowing for the admissibility of field marijuana tests. Although police officers are trained to use these tests, they are not frequently asked to testify as expert witnesses in the administrative tests. Accordingly police officer's application of the tests do not always perfectly follow the manufacturer's required instructions for the use of these tests. Vigorous cross examination can result in the inadmissibility of one of these tests. Finally, there are interesting new challenges to the methodology and reliability of field sobriety tests.

I always advise each client to strongly consider his right to fight his charges. Please contact me if you have a marijuana or other drug case you wish to challenge.

New Crack Cocaine Sentencing Guildelines

Vaughan C. Jones — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 20:42:00 GMT

Recently legislation has been enacted that reduces the unfair federal punishment differences between crack and powder cocaine offenses. In the mid 1980's Congress enacted reactionary laws to address the growing crack cocaine epidemic. Lawmakers relied on misinformation that crack cocaine was more dangerous than the powder form of the drug that was used to "cook" crack. Despite the fact that scientifically there is no difference between crack and powder cocaine, Congress passed laws that treated the two very differently.

In federal court, when judges consider sentences for drug offenses, the Court is required to consider a defendant's sentencing guidelines. The guidelines suggest a range of punishment based on the defendant's criminal history and the amount of drugs involved in the offense. When determining the culpable drug amount, federal judges can consider drugs seized by police, as well as drugs a witness alleges the defendant has distributed.

Prior to 2005, the sentences suggested by the guidelines were mandatory. Now, the guidelines provide an advisory sentencing range. However, even though the guidelines are advisory, there are still minimum sentences that the judge cannot ignore without a "cooperation motion" by the government.

The statutory penalties for crack and powder were very different. Defendants caught with crack were punished one hundred times greater than those with powered cocaine. As an example, a person charged with the intent to distribute 5 kilograms of powered cocaine would face a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence. A person would only need to possess 50 grams of crack to face the same ten-year mandatory minimum sentence.

In August 2010, President Obama signed a bill decreasing the ratio from 100:1 to 18:1. Now, for example, a person must possess with the intent to distribute 280 grams of crack (instead of the 5 grams) to face the mandatory minimum sentence of ten years.

It is clear that all disparities between crack and powder should be eliminated. Additionally, mandatory minimum penalties unfairly require judges to impose ridiculously lengthy sentences. Because federal law still harshly punishes defendants, it more important in those case to obtain the best attorney possible. An experienced federal lawyer can prepare a sentencing memorandum that instructs a judge when to impose a "variance" or "downward departure" from the suggested guideline range. Also in special circumstances, a savvy attorney can use the federal "safety valve" provision to request a sentence below the required mandatory minimum.

Traffic Stops

Richmond Criminal Defense Attorney — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 23:28:00 GMT

A large percentage of criminal investigations arise out of police traffic stops. Many times, the police pull over a vehicle and subsequently begin an intense search of the car and its occupants. Some people have had the horrible experience of being singled out for one of these intrusive violations of our most basic privacy rights. The salient questions are: Do I have to let them search me? Can they search me just because I fit a description? Do I have to answer their questions? Very often, the answer to these concerns is no.

First and foremost, it is important to remember that the police do not have constitutional search rights. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens from all unreasonable police searches. The law clearly indicates that stopping a motor vehicle on a highway and detaining the driver constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, but the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit all seizures; it prohibits only those that are unreasonable. As with other categories of police action subject to fourth amendment constraints, the reasonableness of a seizure depends on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security, free from arbitrary interference of law officers.

The Supreme Court places police-citizen confrontations into three categories: (1) consensual - where the police do not need a justification for search (2) brief searches and seizures - where "reasonable suspicion" is required but only a limited search is allowed and (3) Full highly intrusive, full-scale arrests, which must be based on probable cause. In order to determine whether the police have overstepped your rights against illegal searches courts must examine the totality of the circumstances.

Contact a Richmond Criminal Defense Attorney if you need experienced legal assistance.

Violent Crime

Richmond Criminal Defense Lawyer — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 23:15:00 GMT

Virginia’s violent crime rate has decreased dramatically in recent years. The 2009 rate is the 7th lowest in the nation. Nearby States North Carolina and Maryland have rates that double the rate in the Commonwealth.

Crime rates are affected by personal behavior, economic conditions and employment availability. In an unfavorable or declining economy, crime increases. Crime rates rise or fall according to the volume of crimes actually reported. This volume may be affected by differences in how police identify or target crimes and their patrol or investigation behaviors, as well as citizen willingness to report crimes. (http://vaperforms.virginia.gov/indicators/publicsafety/crime.php)

While personal behavior has a major impact on crime, Virginia’s judicial system has had a significant influence on violent offenders. The reduced crime rate is not an accident. Virginia laws on violent offenses are some of the toughest in the nation. Prosecutors vigorously pursue crimes such as murder, rape, road rage, malicious wounding, aggravated malicious wounding and even assault. Commonwealth’s attorneys’ often ask courts to order that people accused of these offenses stay in jail while they await trial. Additionally, conviction of use of a firearm in relation to violent offenses often requires that an offender serve mandatory jail time after his sentence for the violent crime.

Unlike “victimless” offenses (such as drug crimes, obstruction, or traffic infractions), violent crimes strike fear in the public conscious. Accordingly, these crimes frequently receive media attention and charges, trials, and court results are regular reported in print and television. This added scrutiny adds to prosecutorial and judicial apprehension when dealing with these matters. Well meaning prosecutors occasionally blur the line between desired justice for the injured and excessive zeal.

The heightened prosecutorial and judicial focus must be met with an equally aggressive defense. There are a litany of strategic responses available to persons accused of violent offenses. In certain circumstances violent conduct may be legally excused or justified. Specifically, a claim of self-defense in Virginia allows criminal defendants to present evidence not admissible in any other case.

I have tried hundreds of cases involving violent crimes. As a criminal defense specialist, I am uniquely qualified to craft appropriate defenses in these matters. If you are accused of such a crime, do not hesitate to contact an experienced Richmond criminal defense attorney.

American Outlaw Motorcycle Club Case

Julia Cook — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:07:00 GMT

On June 15, 2010, Federal agents charged more than two dozen members of the American Outlaw Motorcycle Club across the country with participating in a criminal enterprise. I am representing one of those men. Following please from 19 of the defendants, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson divided the remaining eight defendants into two trials.

In the first trial, the jury was unable to reach a verdict on Outlaws President Jack Rosga of Milwaukee. He was charged with conspiracy to commit racketeering and conspiracy to commit violence in the aid of racketeering for allegedly ordering Outlaws subordinates to ambush members of the Hells Angels in a war against the rival motorcycle club.

The defense argued those allegations were false, ridiculous accusations made by an Outlaws member who had sought to pad his own reputation.

The jury convicted Leslie Werth, a leader in the club's Rock Hill, S.C., chapter, on the same charges facing Rosga. It also acquitted two other Outlaws members.

Please look at the "Case Results" section of this website to see the exceptional result achieved for my client.

If you need a Richmond criminal defense attorney, contact me today.

Your Rights

Richmond Criminal Defense Attorney — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:40:00 GMT

"The police never read me my rights"

This is the most common statement I hear from my clients. Essentially people want to know if the failure to instruct a criminal of his rights pursuant to Miranda will cause a case to be dismissed. Usually the answer is no. Sometimes, however, if the police do follow the law in this area, the governments case can suffer fatal consequences. Here are some important considerations:

"Miranda Rights" are named after the U.S. Supreme Court case, Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966). The police must advise suspects of their "Miranda Rights" - their right to remain silent, their right to an attorney, and the right to an appointed attorney if they are unable to afford counsel - prior to conducting a custodial interrogation. If a suspect is not in police "custody" the police do not have to warn him of his rights. Although it is not required, many officers customarily have suspects sign a rights waiver form to indicate that they understood their rights.

Determining what constitutes "custodial" interrogation is often a vague issue. A person may be in custody for purposes of Miranda even if the police have not told him he is "under arrest."

If a suspect is interrogated in custody without being read his rights, the statement he makes is excluded from evidence. Furter, if an illigally obtained statement tells the police where to find evidence that they wouldn't have found otherwise, that evidence is also excluded as "fruit of the poisonous tree." Legally, it's as if the confession never happened.

Sometimes charges may be dismissed as the result of suppression of evidence because of a failure to read the Miranda warnings. If the court excludes an illegally obtained confession and the prosecution does not have enough evidence left to pursue the case, the Defendant will be found not guilty. But failure to read a suspect his Miranda rights before questioning does not automaticallyc require the dismissal of a case. Although these rules apply to all criminal matters, some types of cases are more prone to be affected by tha admissability if the defendant's statement. Cases involving drug posession, sex crimes, murder, larceny offenses, DUI, criminal harrassment, and obstruction of justice are frequently altered by incriminating statements by the accused. Some other cases like assaults and trespass are less frequently determined based upon statements from the defendant.

When the police have failed to inform a person of his rights, his lawyer must determine how and if this omission can be used to his client's advantage. If you have been charged with a crime, you should promptly inform your criminal defense lawyer of all the circumstances surrounding your arrest. The police actions during this crucial time may affect the evidence that will be admitted in your trial.

First Offenses

Richmond Criminal Defense Attorney — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 15:48:00 GMT

My clients always ask, "Since this is my first offense, can the judge just let me do community service and keep the charges off of my record?" The answer is maybe. It is no secret that trial courts, at all levels, have an unbroken history of deferring findings of guilt, in fact-specific situations, in order to reduce or dismiss charges after defendants comply with certain conditions set by the courts. What this means is that in the past, a court would find that there was enough evidence for guilt then continue the case for 12 months. If the defendant kept the peace and was of good behavior, the Court would dismiss the charge. The idea was that everybody makes mistakes. Accordingly, for certain minor infractions, the court looked at a first offense as a warning.

However, in a recent decision from the Virginia Supreme Court, that Court held that absent explicit statutory authority courts can only accept pleas and decide cases in terms of guilty or not guilty. In light of this decision, many trial courts in the state no longer provide that first mistake disposition. Specifically courts in Henrico County have stated emphatically, that they will not take cases under advisement to be dismissed. The seemingly unfair result of this position is that a drug addict who is charged with felony possession of heroin can get his charge dismissed but a college student that makes a silly mistake shoplifting cannot.

The exceptions to this rule are domestic assault, trespass and drug charges. In those cases the Virginia Code (18.2-57, 18.2-118, 18.-53.1, 18.2-248.1) specifically instructs the trial court how to take charges under advisement and keep a defendant’s record clean. As a result, most first offense possession of marijuana, possession of cocaine, possession of heroin, trespass charges and assaults in juvenile and domestic relations courts are resolved with community service, court related education courses and then dismissed.

Some courts still allow the “first mistake” result. Often, the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s in those jurisdictions will amend charges to fit in within one of the statutory exceptions. Good attorneys know where and when this practice can be utilized to their client’s advantage. I have practiced in more than twenty different jurisdictions within the state. I know which jurisdictions are still open to this approach.

It is important for an attorney to explore whether the “first offender or first mistake” tactic is available for his client. A person’s criminal record is one of the most precious things in their life. It is the standard for the way he will be measured by his family, the courts, schools, and future employers. As a result, I do everything in my power to make sure that my client’s records stay clean.

Contact me if you need an experienced Richmond criminal defense attorney.

Drug Charges in the State of Virginia

Richmond Criminal Defense Attorney — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 01:48:00 GMT

Virginia state laws are tough on drug crimes. In most instances in the Eastern District of Virginia (Norfolk, Richmond, Alexandria) federal courts are even tougher. In addition to reaching different results, the federal criminal justice system functions differently than the state system. I’ve heard clients who have experience with the state system comment that they "feel like they are on a different planet" when they encounter federal prosecution. Here are a few of the important distinctions between state and federal drug prosecutions.

When a person is convicted in state or federal court for distributing drugs, the judge bases the sentence imposed upon sentencing guidelines. State distribution sentences are usually not affected by the drugs involved in the case. Federal drug judges always increase sentences with higher drug quantities. Oddly, federal courts also consider drugs that the defendant is alleged to have possessed. Federal courts also impose higher sentences for crack than they do for powder cocaine. As a result, it's not uncommon for a person to receive 25 years of incarceration in a federal case for a crime that would have resulted in 5 year sentence in state court.

Drug charges in federal court are further complicated by the fact that federal prosecutors rarely (virtually never) promise to reduce jail time in exchange for plea agreement. In state court, prosecutors often agree a lower sentence if the defendant pleads guilty. Sentence reduction in federal drug crimes occurs after, if at all, the defendant goes to jail. Contrary to what some might expect, the prosecutor not the defendant is the only party that can ask for a post trial (rule 35) sentence reduction.

The federal system is geared toward guilty pleas. The most alarming indication of this fact is that, although presumed innocent, convicted federal defendants get a higher sentence if they plead not guilty. Also, while state courts have a wide range of sentencing options most federal drug crimes have mandatory minimum sentences that cannot be suspended.

As a result of these differences criminal defense lawyers have to know the "language" of the federal courts. I've been practicing in each of the Eastern District trial and federal courts since 1995. My experience tells me that often the most important time in a federal case is the first 72 hours after arrest. During that time and during sentencing a lawyer can best use his knowledge of the federal system to shave years off of his clients' sentences.

Welcome to Our Richmond Criminal Defense Blog

Richmond Criminal Defense Attorney — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:26:00 GMT

We are pleased to announce the launch of our Richmond Criminal Defense Blog! Our RSS feed can be found here: http://www.criminaldefenselawyerrichmond.com/Blog/Recent-Blog-Posts/RSS.xml