Georgia Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Criminal defense lawyers win speedy trial motions on appeal

2009-12-18T18:03:24Z

The Court of Appeals of Georgia recently reversed the denials of motions to dismiss based on speedy trial grounds in two different cases. The court found that the 35 and 36 month delays were both presumptively prejudicial and violated a defendant’s right to a speedy trial under the four-part balancing test.

In Davis v. State, the defendant, Davis, was arrested for kidnapping with bodily injury, burglary, armed robbery and aggravated assault in March of 2005. 17 months later he filed a motion for immediate trial or dismissal which the trial court denied. However, Davis was able to post bond at the time. Davis then filed a second motion in April 2008, which was denied, 35 months after the arrest.

In Ditman v. State, the defendant, Ditman, was arrested for child molestation on October 11, 2005 for molesting the three year old son of his girlfriend. On May 22, 2006, Ditman demanded a speedy trial. However, in July of that year, Ditman’s counsel asked for a continuance, since the state had failed to comply with discovery demands and he failed to locate the mother of the victim. Prosecutors then told defense counsel that if he dropped the speedy demand the discovery would be made available. Counsel did so to which Ditman wrote several letters in protest. Ditman’s counsel then withdrew from the case and he received a new attorney in May of 2007. In June of that year, nearly 36 months after arrest, Ditman’s counsel filed a motion for discharge and acquittal on speedy grounds which the trial court denied in October of 2008.

Under the law, the right to a speedy trial is violated if 1.) the length of delay is presumptively prejudicial and 2.) the Barker four-part balancing test weighs in favor of the defendant. The clock begins to tick, for purposes of the length of a delay, at the time of the arrest or when formal charges are brought. The law is also clear that any delay approaching a year raises a threshold presumption of prejudice. If a court finds this presumption, it will then engage in a four-part balancing test. This includes 1.) the length of delay; 2.) the reasons for delay; 3.) defendant’s assertion to the right to a speedy trial; and 4.) the prejudice to the defendant. No one factor is necessary or sufficient to give rise to a violation.

In Davis, the court found that 33 months of the 35 month delay was attributed to the state, and that the delay was attributed to a lack of diligence. While a deliberate delay weighs more heavily against the state, a lack of diligence also weighs against it. The court then noted that there were two long periods in which Davis failed to assert his right to a speedy trial which weighed against him. However, Davis was able to show prejudice, since two of the robbery victims had made exculpatory statements. The two were illegal aliens who could not pick Davis out of a photographic line up. In balancing these factors, the court found that the trial judge erred in not finding sufficient prejudice to support a speedy trial claim.

Similarly in Ditman, the court found the 36 month delay to be presumptively prejudicial. In its analysis under Barker, the court found that the state was slow to comply with discovery requests which caused the continuance, and that 23 of the 36 month delay was directly on the hands of the state. However, while Ditman did assert his right by filing a motion, he also withdrew that motion. Yet, the court also noted that 16 months elapsed between his motion for discharge and the trial court’s denial which meant his initial withdrawal could not be weighed heavily against him. The court further found that Ditman was prejudiced, since he could not find the victim’s mother who stated that her son had never mentioned any abusive acts and that she never saw any physical signs. The court ruled that these factors weighed in favor of Ditman, and that the trial court should have granted the motion for discharge and acquittal.

Our criminal defense lawyers have successfully won several speedy trial challenges. In our experience, it is not uncommon for prosecutors to drag out prosecutions in order to gain some advantage at trial or to simply keep a defendant in custody for a longer period of time. As in these cases, a long delay can severely impact a defendant’s case due to a greater chance of having to deal with missing witnesses or lost evidence. However, in some cases, it may be advantageous for a defendant to delay a trial especially if the defendant is out on bond or if the district attorney may lose interest in the case. An experienced criminal defense attorney will know when it is advantageous to bring a speedy trial claim and when it is simply better to allow a case to sit.

Georgia criminal defense attorney wins reversal of murder conviction based on state’s failure to disclose co-defendant’s altered plea agreement

2009-11-30T17:39:39Z

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.

Georgia criminal lawyer wins drug suppression after court rules an “ambiguous comment” does not give rise to probable cause

2009-11-30T17:32:11Z

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.

Atlanta criminal attorney requests dismissal of voluntary manslaughter charge in the death of A.J. Jewell

2009-11-25T03:15:47Z

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.

Child pornography charges may be the result of a computer virus

2009-11-12T21:00:40Z

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.

Atlanta doctor charged with health care fraud in alleged false claims scheme

2009-11-11T19:39:44Z

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.

Atlanta federal grand jury indicts Eastern Europeans for alleged computer crimes

2009-11-10T23:23:02Z

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.

Atlanta defense lawyer wins appeal in murder case when the state supreme court finds his client's confession was not voluntary

2009-11-04T17:50:58Z

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

Rome Georgia paper mill investigation leads to federal criminal charges

2009-11-03T23:34:57Z

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.

Macon Georgia criminal attorney wins murder case in Houston County

2009-11-03T23:28:53Z

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.

FBI announces prostitution sting and sexual exploitation arrests in Atlanta and other cities

2009-10-26T22:57:16Z

The FBI and other law enforcement agencies conducted numerous underage sex stings in the Atlanta metro area over the past three days. In total, the operation has resulted in 35 arrests in the Atlanta area.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

The Atlanta stings were part of a national operation known as Operation Cross County IV which targeted child prostitution. Across the nation, more than 700 people were arrested after agents focused primarily on websites, truck stops and casinos. In Atlanta, officers say they arrested six pimps, three johns and 26 prostitution suspects. Agents also say they rescued two juveniles.

Those arrested could face many different types of charges under state and federal laws including child trafficking, sexual exploitation of a child, child pornography, child molestation and solicitation. These crimes carry harsh penalties, and in many cases, also force the offender to register as sex offender. For instance, Georgia law defines the mere possession of an image of a minor engaged in sexual behavior as sexual exploitation of a child, and a conviction can result in a five to 20 year prison sentence. Similarly, under federal law, the charge of child pornography can result in a sentence of 10 years, and if the image was distributed in some manner, the sentence can increase to 20 years.

Drug raids in Gwinnett County, Georgia lead to dozens of arrests of alleged La Familia Michoacana members

2009-10-22T20:09:25Z

On Wednesday, several law enforcement agencies raided at least two homes in Gwinnett County. The raids targeted a Mexican-based organization that police say traffics in drugs.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

The DEA spearheaded the raids which resulted in dozens of arrests and an undisclosed sum of drugs and money. The organization which agents targeted, La Familia Michoacana, has been described by police as being an extremely violent drug trafficking organization. In addition to the DEA, agents from the GBI, Atlanta High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Task Force and the Gwinnett County District Attorney’s Office also took an active role.

Our criminal defense attorneys have successfully defended many clients charged with drug offenses after police discovered drugs in a home. In our experience, there is almost always a question of whether a search was lawfully conducted any time drugs are found by law enforcement. To challenge the search and seizure of contraband in a private home, a criminal defense attorney must generally be able to argue that the warrant which authorized the search (if there was one) was not supported by probable cause, that police exceeded the scope of the warrant or that the warrant was somehow defective on its face. A good criminal defense attorney will do this by reviewing every aspect of the police investigation including police interviews, witness and informant statements and any electronic monitoring such as video surveillance or wire taps.

Atlanta criminal lawyer Page Pate is hired to represent pilot falsely accused in major drug conspiracy in Peachtree City, Georgia

2009-10-20T16:33:50Z

Our firm was recently retained to represent the owner of a small charter plane business indicted by federal authorities in an alleged drug conspiracy involving 170 kilograms of cocaine that was being brought to the Atlanta area by two Mexican nationals.

This is a serious charge. Under federal law, conspiring to distribute more than 5 kilograms of cocaine is punishable by 10 years to life in prison. In addition, any property which facilitates or is derived from the drug offense may be seized and forfeited. In this case, federal agents are attempting to forfeit Fontana’s Cessna despite his lack of involvement or knowledge in any drug conspiracy.

This case is a stark reminder of the wide sweeping net that authorities cast in drug conspiracy cases. In our experience, innocent people with little to no information of a conspiracy are often treated just as harshly as those who orchestrated it. A good criminal defense attorney will work with prosecutors and law enforcement in an effort to show that their client had no involvement in any alleged conspiracy.

A defense attorney will also analyze every step of the police investigation to determine if police acted lawfully. This includes reviewing police and witness statements, obtaining police video and audio recordings, examining technology used by officers for defects such as laser, radar, dog sniffs or taps, and determining if all search warrants for vehicles, homes or telephones were properly obtained.

We certainly intend to do these things on behalf of our client in this case and we look forward to his acquittal at trial, if he is not dismissed from this case before then.

Video gambling raid in Chamblee, Georgia leads to 14 arrests

2009-10-19T18:21:17Z

On Sunday night, Chamblee police raided six businesses suspected of paying out cash to customers using video gaming machines. Police arrested 14 people on gambling charges and seized thousands of dollars in cash.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

Under Georgia law, video gaming machines are legal, but businesses can only pay out store credit or prizes with a value of no more than $5. Paying out cash is illegal. Police say they raided the six businesses because an undercover officer obtained video of the businesses paying out cash the week before.

In total, the raids netted 74 machines, two guns and over $20,000 in cash. The machines were mainly “Triple 7” slots and video poker which took ones, fives, tens and even hundred dollar bills. Police have not yet opened the machines to count how much money is inside.

Of the 14 arrested, 12 are charged with felony commercial gambling. If convicted, they could face between one to five years in prison or fined up to $20,000, or both. The other two face misdemeanor gambling charges. Police said the raid was aimed at arresting the owners and managers of the businesses, and that most of the customers were released.

Our criminal defense attorneys have successfully defended several clients charged with commercial gambling and other gambling offenses. It is important to understand that a person charged with a gambling offense may also be subject to forfeiture laws. All property that is used to “facilitate” or that which is “derived from” the offense may be seized and forfeited. This may include anything from vehicles to money. A good criminal defense attorney will not only fight the gambling charges, but he will also vigorously fight to prevent the government’s taking of property by challenging any forfeiture proceedings.

Child pornography charges in Columbus Georgia for "sexting" between teens?

2009-10-18T15:44:57Z

There is a growing trend among teenagers and children which involves texting naked images of oneself to others by the use of cell phones. Police call it "sexting," and it could lead to numerous minors being charged with possession of underage pornography.

The Columbus Georgia Ledger Enquirer has the story.

What many children and parents fail to understand is that possessing or distributing a naked image of a minor is illegal even if the receiver or sender is a minor. When it comes to juveniles and sexting, the Sex Crimes Unit of the Columbus Police reports that they mainly see cases involving sixth, seventh and eighth grade children. Police estimate that they only know of a small fraction of the actual cases, since most cases are handled by school officials and parents. Whether or not charges are filed in a particular case depends heavily on the ages of the sender and receiver, what exactly was sent and how much was sent.

When charges are filed, the consequences can be severe. One of the most common offenses that is charged for sexting is sexual exploitation of a child. This law makes it illegal for any person to knowingly possess or control any material which depicts a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. If convicted of this crime, a person 17 or older would face between five and 20 years in prison and have to register as a sex offender. Minors may also face stiff penalties in juvenile court.

Our criminal defense attorneys have successfully defended numerous clients charged with possessing child pornography after their computers or cell phones were seized by police. As this story shows, there are many times that a person may not realize he or she is breaking the law, or a person may not be aware that such images are on their computer or cell phone. Regardless of the circumstances, a good criminal defense attorney will analyze every element of the police investigation and resulting arrest to determine if the images were lawfully seized by means of a properly executed warrant or by the defendant’s consent. If the computer or cell phone was illegally seized, the images found on them must generally be suppressed.