Jacksonville Criminal Lawyer Blog

Harry Shorstein, Partner at the Criminal Defense and Civil Litigation Law Firm of Lasnetski Gihon Law, in Jacksonville, Florida

Published on: July 8, 2010 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Although he has been back in private practice for a year and a half with the law firm of Lasnetski Gihon Law in Jacksonville, Florida, people still ask what Harry Shorstein is doing these days. Most people in the Northeast Florida area know that Harry Shorstein was the State Attorney for Duval County, Clay County and Nassau County in and around Jacksonville, Florida for 18 years. However, since he decided not to run for re-election in 2008, some of the news agencies incorrectly reported that he was retiring. He didn’t.

Harry Shorstein has been actively practicing law for Lasnetski Gihon Law in the areas of state and federal criminal defense, personal injury/wrongful death litigation and commercial litigation. He has represented clients in serious white collar crime cases in state and federal courts as well as clients in drug cases and serious violent crime cases. He also represents various companies who are involved in business disputes and litigation in Jacksonville and other parts of Florida. In fact, the law firm just finished a major asset forfeiture case in which approximately 90% of the funds seized from our corporate client was returned after the government seized just under $3 million from the company.

It is hard to imagine that anyone practicing criminal law and civil litigation in the Jacksonville, Florida area has the breadth of experience, contacts and resources that Harry Shorstein has. We feel it is important that people understand that he remains active in private practice handling all cases in the areas of criminal defense, personal injury/wrongful death and business litigation. Harry Shorstein can be contacted here for a free consultation about your case.

Jacksonville Beach Company Indicted in Federal Court on Fraud Charges

Published on: July 6, 2010 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Several Employees of United Directories, a company located in Jacksonville Beach, Florida, were indicted in federal court for allegedly defrauding businesses out of more than $400 million by allegedly sending fraudulent bills for Yellow Pages advertisements. Federal law enforcement officials said United Directories and its employees sent the false Yellow Pages advertisement bills of several hundred dollars each to more than 100,000 companies across the country over a four year period.

Two of the charges include mail fraud and money laundering. The federal government will charge someone with mail fraud any time a person is alleged to have used the mail to commit or facilitate fraud. Using the mail as part of a scheme to defraud confers jurisdiction upon the federal government in a criminal case. Money laundering involves taking money that is known to come from illegal activity or an illegal source and mixing it with legitimate money in an attempt to conceal the source of the money, or clean it. When this kind of money is involved in an alleged fraudulent scheme, the potential penalties can be quite severe.

In Florida, Defendant’s Confession is Not Admissible Until State Proves Crime Was Committed

Published on: July 3, 2010 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Quite often, a major part of the state’s case is a statement or a confession from the defendant either admitting the crime or admitting to certain damaging facts that reflect negatively upon the defendant at the criminal trial. However, in Florida, a defendant’s confession that was lawfully obtained is not always admissible to prove the state’s case.

In a criminal case in Florida, the state cannot admit a defendant’s statement or confession until the state has presented other proof that a crime was committed. Because of this rule, a defendant can never be convicted of a crime based on his/her statement alone. A defendant’s statement can certainly be used against a defendant to prove the state’s case, however the state must present evidence independent of the defendant’s statement first before seeking to admit the defendant’s statement into evidence. If the state does not have sufficient independent evidence to establish that a crime occurred, the defendant’s statement will not come into evidence and the criminal case will likely be dismissed.

Drug Case Dismissed After Police Illegally Enter Suspect’s Home

Published on: June 30, 2010 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

In a recent trafficking in cocaine case that occurred south of Jacksonville, Florida, the criminal case was dismissed after the court found that the drugs were illegally seized when the police entered the defendant’s home without consent, a search warrant or exigent circumstances. In order for the police to lawfully enter one’s residence, they must either have consent to enter, a valid search warrant or emergency circumstances.

In this case, the suspect called the police after a robbery occurred at his apartment. The police arrived approximately 30 minutes after the robbers left the apartment. When the police arrived, the robbery was clearly over and there was no indication that any of the robbers were in the area. However, the police entered the defendant’s apartment without permission and found cocaine and other drugs inside. At that point, the person who called the police was arrested for trafficking cocaine and possession of illegal pills.

The criminal defense lawyer for the defendant filed a motion to suppress the drugs found in the apartment and asserted that the police did not have a right to be in his apartment in the first place since the defendant did not give them permission to enter, the police did not have a search warrant and there were no exigent circumstances allowing the entry and search. The state argued that the recent robbery provided the exigent circumstances to justify the entry and search. The state argued that because a robbery had just occurred and the suspects could be inside the apartment, the police had a right to look for them. This might be true and a legitimate basis for a search without a warrant if the robbery was recent and there were some specific facts leading the police to believe the robbers were still in the apartment. However, the police could not point to any specific facts indicating there was anything in the apartment related to the robbery that needed to be searched on an emergency basis. As a result, there was no legitimate basis for the police to enter the apartment, and the search for the drugs was found to be illegal. The drugs were thrown out of court along with the drug charges.

New Product Supposedly Easily Tests for Drug Use

Published on: June 27, 2010 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Drug tests are used for a variety of reasons in the criminal justice system. They are used by pretrial services in Federal court to see if a person recently arrested tests positive for drugs in reference to a bond request. They are used by the probation officers in the state system to make sure probationers are not using drugs. A positive test in either circumstance can result in the person being in violation of his/her probation and being put back in jail. Employers, school officials, coaches, parents and others may use drug tests for various reasons.

According to a recent article, a new product called DrugWipe, is available that can tell is a person has used seven different kinds of drugs with 100% accuracy, according to a recent article on News4Jax.com. According to the manufacture of DrugWipe, the product is wiped across a non-porous surface that the person has recently touched, and it can determine if that [person has used one or more for the various illegal drugs. Currently, drug testers typically use urine tests. There are certain products on the market that can mask the results of a urine-based drug test. Additionally, those tests can only show the results of certain types of drugs.

It remains to be seen whether this new product is accurate in detecting drugs in a person’s system.

Jacksonville Man Arrested for Murder 4 Years After Incident

Published on: June 24, 2010 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

A Jacksonville, Florida man was recently arrested for the crime of murder by the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office (JSO) four years after he allegedly beat the victim, according to an article on News4Jax.com. Apparently, the suspect beat his girlfriend four years ago so badly that she was rendered a quadriplegic and forced to live in a nursing home for the past four years. The victim recently died, and the suspect was rearrested on murder charges.

Cases like this when the death occurs so long after the alleged incident are rare, but they do happen and the state is permitted to charge the suspect with murder years after the original incident occurred. This is because there is no statute of limitations for the crime of murder. In Florida, any capital felony, life felony or felony that results in a death may be charged at any time. There is no deadline. Other less serious crimes are subject to the statute of limitations. For instance, in Florida, a first degree felony that does not involve a death must be commended within four years of the incident. Other felonies must be commenced within three years of the incident date, and first degree misdemeanors must be commenced within two years of the commission of the crime.

The other prevailing issue in a case like this is whether the state can prove causation. In other words, in any murder case, the state has to prove that the victim actually died from the actions of the defendant. When there is a long period of time between the incident and the actual death, the criminal defense lawyer can always argue that the death was caused by something other than the defendant’s conduct, which is why so much time elapsed in between the incident and the death. In order to prove the murder charge, the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim died as a direct result of the defendant’s actions.

Attorney General Issues Memo on Charging Federal Crimes and Sentencing

Published on: June 21, 2010 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder recently issued a memorandum regarding the U.S. Attorney’s Office charging of federal crimes and sentencing. The new memo basically supersedes the previous policy of former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. Aschcroft’s policies on charging and sentencing sought more uniformity and less discretion. Holder’s policy appears to recognize that each case and each defendant are different so more discretion and “individual assessment” are appropriate when considering the charges and sentencing enhacements.

The prior policy of the government was to charge the most serious crime(s) that can be considered consistent with the defendant’s conduct and likely to obtain a conviction. The new policy appears to encourage prosecutors to take a closer look into the characteristics of the individual defendant and the case to see if a departure from the most serious charges and sentencing enhancements may be warranted.

Alleged Victim’s Prior Violence is Admissible in Self Defense Case in Florida

Published on: June 18, 2010 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

When a person is arrested and charged with a crime of violence such as assault, battery aggravated assault, aggravated battery or a murder charge, the criminal defense lawyer for the defendant may attempt to introduce evidence of the alleged victim’s prior history of violence. Is this evidence of the alleged victim’s prior violence admissible at the trial? Yes, when the defendant is relying on a self defense theory in the case.

In Florida, when the defendant is charged with a violent crime, self defense is a common defense. If it can be established that the victim has a history of violence and the defendant was aware of this violent history, the criminal defense lawyer can bring out that evidence about the alleged victim at the trial for the jury to consider. The idea is that a self defense claim asserts that the defendant had a reason to believe that he/she was in danger based on the violent and/or threatening conduct of the alleged victim. Where the defendant knows that the alleged victim has a history violent conduct, that is relevant to establish that the defendant had reason to believe that the alleged victim was being, or was about to be, similarly violent in this case. Such evidence is relevant to show the state of mind of the defendant and to justify the defendant’s reasonable fear of the alleged victim and the defendant’s use of violence to defend him/herself from the alleged victim.

Florida Governor Approves Red Light Cameras

Published on: June 15, 2010 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

Florida Governor Charlie Crist signed a bill into law that allows cities and counties in Florida to have red light cameras as a way to enforce traffic laws. The cameras are set up at various intersections and take a picture of the vehicles and license tags when drivers run red lights at those intersections. Citations with the fines for those violations are then sent to the registered owner of the vehicle.

Prior to this bill, Florida neither allowed nor prohibited such cameras, but the DOT did not allow red light cameras at intersections on state roads. Fifty counties and cities already have these red light cameras in place. The new law provides that a ticket for running a red light caught on camera would cost $158.

It is not surprising that Florida is approving of this law now. Revenue from the red light camera citations is estimated to be as much as $100 million for Florida by 2014 at a time when all states are struggling to raise money.

Police Arrest Suspect Outside Home, Cannot Search Inside Home For Drugs

Published on: June 12, 2010 | by Lasnetski Gihon Law

In a recent drug case that occurred south of Jacksonville, Florida, police had information that heroin, marijuana and other illegal drugs were being kept and sold at a particular house. The police conducted surveillance of the house and saw one person exit the house and sell drugs to a customer. The police ultimately arrested that person for sale of heroin in the front yard of the house. Upon arrest, the police observed that the front door was open and people were in the house. The police went inside the house without a search warrant and found more heroin, marijuana and other drugs. The other occupants of the house were then also arrested for trafficking and possession of heroin and illegal drugs.

The criminal defense lawyer for the defendants filed a motion to suppress evidence of the seized drugs based on the fact that the police search of the house was unlawful. The general rule is that police cannot enter and search a person’s house without consent or a valid search warrant. There are exceptions. For instance, when the police make an arrest, they are permitted to search the immediate area to make sure there are not any threats to the safety of the officers. This is called a protective sweep. However, the police cannot do this automatically. There must be evidence indicating there is may be some threat to the police officers. In this case, there was no specific evidence indicating that there was anything in the house that was a threat to the police officers who made the arrest outside of the house. There was no evidence that anyone in the house was armed or any threat to any police officer. As a result, the police did not have a right to enter and search the house for drugs without consent or a search warrant. Because the search was unlawful, all of the evidence of the heroin, marijuana and other drugs in the house was thrown out.