Georgia Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

The Supreme Court of Georgia recently held that the state’s failure to disclose a co-defendant’s changed sentence from the plea agreement, which allowed the co-defendant to potentially reduce his sentence after testifying against the defendant, robbed the defendant of his right to impeach the co-defendant by showing a motivation to lie.

In State v. Gonnella, the defendant, Gonnella, was convicted of felony murder but acquitted of malice murder. On the night in question, Gonnella and his friend Evans drove to an apartment to buy marijuana from Williams. Williams stated that he had no marijuana, but that he had $500 to buy marijuana if Evans found a seller. Gonnella and Evans left, but then drove back at Gonnella’s request. While Evans waited in the car, Gonnella went into the apartment at which time Evans heard a gunshot. Gonnella later told Evans that Williams went for his gun and that a struggle ensued during which time the weapon was discharged. The two men then drove to Evans’ brother’s home where Gonnella stated that he had killed someone. Gonnella gave the brother his bloody shirt, and Evans later disposed of the gun in a wooded area. Evans eventually told police the location of the gun, and police were able to match the gun to the bullet pulled from Williams. Police also learned that the bullet was fired close to the skin and that it traveled downward into Williams’ head.

Evans and Gonnella were then indicted on three counts with Count One being malice murder. Before trial, Gonnella asked the court for an order forcing the state to reveal all agreements between the state and any of its witnesses. At the hearing, the state disclosed a plea agreement with Evans. Gonnella then simply asked the state to disclose any future plea agreements. When Evans took the stand, the state gave Gonnella a document entitled “Plea Agreement.” According to the agreement, Evans would plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter as to Count One and receive 20 years with 15 in prison. In exchange, Evans would testify against Gonnella at trial.

However, the state failed to provide a document entitled “Defendant’s Change of Plea.” In that document, Evans altered his plea from “not guilty” to “guilty” to voluntary manslaughter. On these forms, there is a sentence which reads: “In addition, the defendant waives any right to modification of the sentence to be imposed pursuant to this agreement, and agrees that he shall not seek modification of said sentence in the future.” However, this text was crossed out on Evan’s change of plea form. The lack of this text meant that Evans could ask for a better sentence for himself after testifying against Gonnella.

Under the U.S. Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland, the state has a duty to reveal any agreement with a witness which concerns criminal charges against the witness. Failure to comply with Brady constitutes a due process violation. For a defendant to succeed on a Brady claim, he must show that the state possessed evidence helpful to the defendant, that the state suppressed the evidence, that the defendant did not have the evidence nor could he through reasonable diligence, and that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different had the state disclosed the evidence.

The Supreme Court of Georgia reasoned that being able to impeach the state’s primary witness is of great importance. In this case, the state denied Gonnella the ability to impeach Evans by demonstrating a motive to lie. The Court explained that if the state had disclosed the change, Gonnella would have had the opportunity to show that the state left open the possibility that Evans could receive a lighter sentence. Gonnella would have been able to argue that the state did this so that Evans would be motivated to testify in such a way as to ensure Gonnella’s conviction. Thus, the state denied favorable evidence that Gonnella could not have found by reasonable diligence. The Court also found that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different, since the jury acquitted Gonnella of malice murder and the other witness, Evans’ brother, also had a motive to lie which was to protect his brother.

Our criminal defense attorneys have defended numerous clients who have had co-defendants testify against them at trial. In our experience, it is not uncommon for a defendant to be denied full knowledge of deals or agreements that are made between the government and witnesses. It is also not uncommon for a witness or a co-defendant to lie in hopes of getting a better deal. A good criminal defense attorney will pressure the state by filing disclosure motions and conducting independent investigations to ensure that a jury knows of any deals that a witness has accepted and whether the witness is telling the truth about what happened. An independent investigation often consists of running background checks, interviewing other witnesses and persons who know the witness as well as reviewing police and court transcripts for inconsistent statements.

The Court of Appeals ruled earlier this month that an officer lacked probable cause to make a search incident to arrest, since the arrest was supported entirely by a third party’s statement that the suspect placed something in his pocket. The Court reasoned that there must generally be some evidence directly linking the suspect to the suspected criminal activity to support probable cause.

In Lawrence v. State, the defendant, Jack Lawrence was convicted of cocaine possession after a traffic stop. On the night of his arrest, an officer saw a vehicle swerving before it came to a stop in the middle of a road outside of a club known for drug activity. A man then walked from the club to the vehicle and got inside. The car then swerved off the road. The officer conducted a traffic stop and recognized the driver as Lawrence’s wife due to Lawrence’s history of drug offenses. The wife denied picking anyone up from the club but then admitted that she had. The officer then asked if there were any drugs in the vehicle and she replied that she didn’t think so. The officer stated that if he found any drugs in the vehicle the wife and Lawrence would probably go to jail. The wife responded “[W]ell, Jack put something in his pocket.” Not knowing the contents of Lawrence’s pocket, the officer instructed Lawrence to exit the vehicle and empty his pockets. Lawrence then pulled out a bag of cocaine which resulted in his arrest and eventual conviction.

Upon Lawrence’s appeal, the state argued that the search of the pocket was incident to Lawrence’s arrest and therefore valid. However, for such a search to be valid, the arrest must be supported by probable cause. Under the law, probable cause is described as being less than a certainty but more than a mere suspicion. It is a relatively low threshold to meet and may even exist given the totality of the circumstances. That is to say a combination of suspicious circumstances may give rise to probable cause. However, for the totality of the circumstances to give rise to probable cause, there generally needs to be some evidence which directly links the suspect to the suspected criminal activity. For instance, the smell of contraband, extreme nervousness, furtive movements or a reliable tip from an informant may be some circumstances that, when combined with others, can give rise to probable cause.

The court reasoned that the circumstances in this case do not show probable cause, since the officer’s suspicions arose entirely from an ambiguous comment made by his wife. As such, the court reversed Lawrence’s conviction finding that the contraband should have been suppressed by the trial court.

Our criminal defense lawyers have also won many drug cases due to officers performing searches after a suspect was illegally arrested. In our experience, there is almost always an issue of whether a search was properly conducted any time drugs are discovered in a vehicle or on a person. To show that there was no probable cause, and thus no grounds to arrest and/or search, a criminal defense attorney will conduct an independent investigation including obtaining police video and recordings, reviewing witness and police statements, and assessing any technology that may have been used by law enforcement such as laser, radar, taps or dog sniffs.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon, Madison and Savannah. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for people charged with serious crimes. We have successfully represented clients facing serious federal criminal charges and state criminal charges in courts across Georgia. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Page Pate was recently the Chairman of the Criminal Law Section of the Atlanta Bar Association.

The manager of the Atlanta strip club Body Tap, Frederick Richardson, was arrested for manslaughter in connection with the death of A.J. Jewell in October. Richardson’s attorney asked the judge this week to dismiss the charge after an autopsy revealed that Richardson may not have been the primary actor in causing Jewell’s death

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

Jewell is best known for being the former fiancé of Kandi Buress, a member of the “Real Housewives of Atlanta”. Police say a fist fight between Jewell and Richardson broke out in the parking lot of Body Tap on October 2. Jewell died at a hospital several hours later which sparked Richardson’s arrest. The Fulton County Medical Examiner released an autopsy report last week which revealed that Jewell suffered from an uncommon sickle cell trait which was the principal cause of death. However, the medical examiner still classified Jewell’s death as a homicide.

Richardson’s attorney, Dennis Scheib, filed a motion on Monday for the voluntary manslaughter charge to be dropped. Scheib claims that Paul Howard, the Fulton County District Attorney, has lost objectivity in the matter since he refuses to acknowledge the medical examiner’s findings. Howard intends to verify the sickle cell trait finding by exhuming Jewell’s body and performing a second autopsy. His office has stated that the decision of whether to prosecute Richardson will depend on the second autopsy’s report. Richardson is currently out on bond pending Howard’s decision.

Our criminal defense lawyers have successfully represented numerous clients who have been accused of voluntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter is similar to murder except that the defendant commits the act under an irresistible and sudden urge due to some provocation. As in this case, the charge is often levied against people who were involved in fights that resulted in a death. A good criminal defense attorney will conduct a thorough investigation into whether some medical condition or intoxication contributed to the death and whether the defendant was simply acting in self defense.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon, Madison and Savannah. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for people charged with serious crimes. We have successfully represented clients facing serious federal criminal charges and state criminal charges in courts across Georgia. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Page Pate was recently the Chairman of the Criminal Law Section of the Atlanta Bar Association.

A Massachusetts man was recently charged with having images of child pornography on his computer. After spending $250,000 on legal fees and computer experts, he was able to show that a computer virus was responsible for the images. Computer experts warn that this may not be an isolated incident.

ABC News has the story.

In the case above, it was revealed that a virus programmed the man’s computer to visit up to 40 child pornography websites every minute. However, the proof of his innocence did not come until 11 months after prosecutors filed charges. There have been a handful of similar documented cases around the United States and the United Kingdom which reveal that other innocent people have been charged. It is unknown how many other people have been wrongfully charged or convicted for child porn because of computer viruses, since many cases have not undergone thorough forensic reviews.

A computer virus can occur in a number of ways including opening email or visiting a malicious website. Some viruses can force another person’s computer to visit child porn websites and collect illegal images from those sites. A computer can also be turned into a storage facility for images and movies that a pedophile can then safely view remotely. Other times the hacker may be playing a prank or trying to frame the user.

Prosecutors maintain that the computer virus argument is generally a ploy. Yet, forensic experts believe that computer viruses are a very real threat when it comes to child porn charges. Experts also agree that in some cases it is simply impossible to determine how an illegal image ended up on a computer.

Our criminal attorneys have successfully defended numerous clients charged with internet crimes, including the possession of child pornography. In our experience, it is not uncommon for prosecutors to charge people who were unaware that illegal images or videos were being stored on their computers. A good criminal defense attorney will consult with a forensic computer expert to determine where the images came from and how they got onto the computer. Many times illegal data comes from other users, unintended emails or downloads, or as this story highlights, a computer hacker or virus. Hiring a forensic computer expert is just one of many steps a criminal defense attorney will take when defending against child porn charges.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for people charged with serious crimes. We have successfully represented clients facing serious federal criminal charges and state criminal charges in courts across Georgia. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Page Pate was recently the Chairman of the Criminal Law Section of the Atlanta Bar Association.

An Atlanta, Georgia doctor was arraigned in federal court on Friday for allegedly billing false claims. He has been charged with committing wire fraud, mail fraud, health care fraud and obstruction of justice. If convicted, the doctor faces a possible 20 year prison sentence.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

Prosecutors say that Dr. Rajashakher P. Reddy, 39, committed the fraud through his company, RSI, Inc., by submitting thousands of patient reports without ever reviewing x-rays and other similar film. Reddy’s company supplied radiologist services to hospitals throughout the southeast that do not provide full-time radiology services.

Mail fraud and wire fraud both carry a possible sentence of up to 20 years. Each offense also carries with it a fine of up to $250,000.

Our criminal defense attorneys have successfully represented several health care professionals who have been charged with crimes such as wire fraud and mail fraud. While there are many ways to defend against wire fraud charges and protect a doctor’s good name, one of the strongest defenses is good faith. It is important to remember that the government carries the burden of showing that the defendant knowingly participated in the fraud. If a defendant can show that he believed his actions were made in good faith, and that there was no intent to commit any fraud or other unlawful acts, there can generally be no conviction. Good faith can be shown through industry standards, cooperating with law enforcement, promptly acting to fix complaints and consulting with an attorney.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for people charged with serious crimes. We have successfully represented clients facing serious federal criminal charges and state criminal charges in courts across Georgia. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Page Pate was recently the Chairman of the Criminal Law Section of the Atlanta Bar Association.

On Tuesday, a federal grand jury in Atlanta indicted seven members of an alleged Eastern European organized crime ring on charges of wire fraud, computer fraud and identity theft. The alleged members come from Estonia, Russia and Moldova. Prosecutors say the group stole $9.4 million from the Royal Bank of Scotland Group’s payroll debit systems.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

Authorities have called it the most sophisticated computer fraud attack ever. It is believed that the international hacking ring responsible for the attack compromised the data encryption systems of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) WorldPay’s computers in Atlanta. Once compromised, hackers were able to obtain information which connected to payroll debit cards used by corporations to pay their employees by means of ATMs.

Prosecutors believe the hackers raised the account limit and gave “cashers” over 40 fake payroll debit cards. In 12 hours, the cashers were able to withdraw $9.4 million from more than 2,000 ATMs in nearly 300 cities across the globe. The cashers kept a share of the profits and sent the rest to various Eastern Europeans. After the scam occurred, authorities believe that the hackers attempted to cover their tracks by destroying data on the compromised network.

Those charged with identity theft, conspiracy to commit computer fraud, computer fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and wire fraud include Sergei Tsurikov of Tallinn, Estonia; Viktor Pleshchuk of St. Petersburg, Russia; and Oleg Covelin of Chisinau, Moldova. Ronald Tsoi, Igor Grudijev, Mihhail Jevgenov and Evelin Tsoi of Tallinn, Estonia have all been charged with access device fraud. The men range in age from 20 to 33.

Among the most serious of these crimes is wire fraud which typically carries a sentence of up to 20 years and a $250,000 fine for each offense. If the fraud is committed against a financial institution, a conviction can result in a 30 year prison sentence and a possible $1,000,000 fine.

Our criminal defense attorneys have successfully defended numerous clients charged in conspiracies involving wire and computer fraud. We have also helped several international clients who have been involved in multinational investigations. In our experience, innocent people with little to no knowledge of any wrongdoings are often swept into conspiracies and treated just as harshly as those who perpetrated the fraudulent acts. In international conspiracy cases, a good criminal defense attorney will work with U.S. and foreign officials to show that his client had no knowledge of any conspiracies or illegal actions. A defense attorney will also examine every step of the international investigation to ensure that U.S. officials followed proper protocol including determining if all warrants were properly obtained and executed, reviewing police recordings and interviewing all relevant witnesses.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for people charged with serious crimes. We have successfully represented clients facing serious federal criminal charges and state criminal charges in courts across Georgia. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Page Pate was recently the Chairman of the Criminal Law Section of the Atlanta Bar Association.

The Supreme Court of Georgia recently suppressed the confession of a murder suspect after finding the confession to be involuntary. In particular, evidence suggested that the suspect had been beaten by police, shocked with a Taser, stripped naked and denied medical attention before he confessed to the murder.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

In State v. Lynch, the defendant, Lynch, was suspected of killing a man in DeKalb County and then driving the victim’s car to North Carolina. Officers in North Carolina spotted the car which resulted in a high speed police chase. Lynch was eventually taken into custody and later interviewed by detectives from DeKalb County which is when he confessed to the murder. However, before detectives from DeKalb County could interview Lynch and obtain the confession, Lynch claimed that he was assaulted and denied medical care.

At a pre-trial hearing to determine whether the confession was admissible, only Lynch and one detective from DeKalb testified. Lynch testified that he had been beaten, tasered, stripped of his clothes and denied medical attention until he gave a statement to police. Moreover, the detective who obtained the confession was impeached on the stand. The trial court ruled that a statement given to police under such circumstances was the product of duress and coercion and therefore involuntary and inadmissible. The Georgia Supreme Court upheld the ruling.

Under Georgia law, involuntary confessions or statements made by a defendant are not admissible at trial. For a statement to be admissible, it must be made freely and voluntarily, without being induced by another by the slightest hope of benefit or remotest fear of injury. Furthermore, it is the state that must show that a confession is voluntary by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial court then makes a ruling based on the totality of the circumstances, and the trial court’s ruling will not be disturbed unless it was clearly erroneous.

The Supreme Court found that Lynch’s testimony and the fact that the detective was impeached on the stand supported the trial court’s ruling to suppress the confession. The Court further blasted the prosecution for not making a greater effort in determining what happened prior to the confession. Specifically, none of the North Carolina officers who arrested and detained Lynch ever testified as to what happened.

Our criminal lawyers have successfully won pretrial suppression hearings for many clients charged with serious crimes. As this case shows, statements made by suspects are often the product of promises, threats, manipulation or outright physical abuse. In our experience, there is almost always a question of whether such statements made to police are admissible at trial. A good criminal defense attorney will challenge the admissibility of a confession by investigating where and under what conditions the confession was given, how long the interrogation lasted, what promises were made, whether any forms of abuse were involved, whether the suspect was intoxicated or not in his or her right mind when the statement was made

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for people charged with serious crimes. We have successfully represented clients facing serious federal criminal charges and state criminal charges in courts across Georgia. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Page Pate was recently the Chairman of the Criminal Law Section of the Atlanta Bar Association.

On Monday, nine men were arraigned in a Rome, Georgia federal court for allegedly scamming a paper mill out of $4.8 million dollars. Federal authorities say the mill paid for timber that was never delivered.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

The mill, Temple-Inland paper mill, was allegedly conned out of the millions of dollars from 2004 to 2006. Prosecutors believe that Aaron Freeman, who worked as a scale house operator at the mill, used the mill’s computers to create two weight readings when a truck went though the mill’s scale. One reading would be for timber that was actually delivered while the other would be for a phony shipment. Freeman would then allegedly recruit truck drivers to help in the scheme by claiming credit for the phony shipments.

The nine men were charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud which carries a sentence of up to 20 years and a $250,000 fine per offense. The names charged in the indictment include Aaron Freeman, Kevin Fields, Curtis Hart, Jason Joseph, Roger Carthern, Andrew Carthern, David Carthern, Robert Frank Ferguson and George Tate. Freeman, Fields and Joseph were also charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering which carries a possible sentence of 20 years in prison and a $500,000 fine.

Our criminal defense attorneys have successfully defended numerous clients charged with wire fraud and money laundering. While there are many ways to defend against wire fraud allegations, one of the most powerful defenses is good faith. It is important to remember that the government carries the burden of showing that the defendant knowingly participated in the fraud. If a defendant can show that he believed his actions were made in good faith, and that there was no intent to commit any fraud or other unlawful acts, there can generally be no conviction. Good faith can be shown through industry standards, cooperating with law enforcement, promptly acting to fix complaints and consulting with an attorney.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for people charged with serious crimes. We have successfully represented clients facing serious federal criminal charges and state criminal charges in courts across Georgia. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Page Pate was recently the Chairman of the Criminal Law Section of the Atlanta Bar Association.

On Friday, a Houston County jury decided that Mario Harris was not guilty of murdering Stephen Register outside a Warner Robins Buffalo’s in December of 2007. The defense argued that Harris was acting in self-defense when he stabbed and killed Register.

The Macon Telegraph has the story.

Harris was facing charges of malice murder, felony murder, possession of a knife during the commission of a crime, aggravated assault and manslaughter. The charges stemmed from an incident in which Harris unexpectedly met his half-sister and the man she was dating inside the restaurant. Moments later the boyfriend and two other men, including Register, charged Harris in the parking lot. Harris testified that he stabbed Register because he feared that the men were going to kill him. He also told jurors that he thought one of the men may have had a gun. Register received a single stab wound just below the chest and died six hours later at the hospital.

The jury deliberated for only 30 minutes before deciding to find Harris not guilty on all counts. The jury later told the attorneys that there was simply no evidence to prove that Harris was the initial aggressor. Under Georgia law, malice murder generally carries a sentence of imprisonment for life, or in the alternative, the prosecutor may choose to seek the death penalty. Frank Hogue was the defense lawyer and did an outstanding job representing his client.

Our criminal defense attorneys have won many acquittals and dismissals for clients charged with serious violent crimes including murder, aggravated assault and manslaughter. As seen in this case, murder and violent crime charges are often levied against people who were simply defending themselves or others. Under Georgia law, a successful self-defense claim will justify any death or harm that the defendant may have caused. To prove self-defense, a good criminal defense attorney will conduct an independent and in-depth investigation which may include interviewing all relevant witnesses, examining physical evidence and retaining qualified medical and psychological experts.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for people charged with serious crimes. We have successfully represented clients facing serious federal criminal charges and state criminal charges in courts across Georgia. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Page Pate was recently the Chairman of the Criminal Law Section of the Atlanta Bar Association.