Georgia Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

On Monday, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the convictions of two men who were found guilty of murdering a DeKalb man at his home recording studio. The DeKalb County District Attorney’s Office must now decide whether it will retry the men.

WABE News and the Atlanta Journal Constitution have the story.

Prosecutors say that Steven Manley and Robert Allen planned to rob the home of Emmett Whatley in February of 2007, because they knew he stored large sum of cash there. However, the state claims that their robbery plans went askew when Whatley was shot and killed in his front yard. After a jury trial, Allen and Manley were convicted and received life sentences for Whatley’s death.

Allen and Manley’s criminal defense attorney won a reversal of the murder convictions on appeal, since the trial judge failed to allow defense attorneys to fully cross-examine state witnesses. WABE legal analyst Page Pate told WABE listeners that, “The Supreme Court is trying to send a message to trial judges in this state that you need to let defense attorneys probe about special deals.” Specifically, Pate explained, “Any sort of benefit that may accrue to the witness by testifying for the state needs to be explored at trial.”

The Supreme Court also ruled that a statement given by Manley should have been suppressed, since the statement came after Manley had asked for an attorney. In the statement, Manley admitted to being in Whatley’s neighborhood on the night of the murder.

Atlanta police are investigating a sexting incident involving students at The Lovett School. One eighth grade student has already been suspended and another has withdrawn.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

The Child Exploitation Unit of the Atlanta Police Department has launched an investigation into the matter after learning that more Lovett School students may have sent or received inappropriate photos. Police have not yet said whether charges will be filed against those involved.

The term “sexting” most commonly refers to the sending and receiving of sexual images via cell phone. When the picture is of a person under the age of 18, the sender and receiver can be charged with a felony. This is true even when the photo in question is of the person sending the text message.

Individuals arrested for sexting are commonly charged with the crime of sexual exploitation of a child. If convicted, a person aged 17 years or older could face between five and 20 years in prison and would be forced to register as a sex offender. Those under 17 could also face tough penalties.

In cases where the underage person made the image, or was the person transmitting or receiving it, there may be constitutional protections that apply. This is a new area of law and our firm is working hard to make sure that kids are not prosecuted under unduly harsh sex offender laws for communications that occur exclusively between minors. There is a big difference between a 40 year old sexual predator who molests young children, and a teenage girl sending naked pictures of herself to her boyfriend.

The home of Crawford Lewis, the Superintendent of the DeKalb County School System, was searched Thursday morning by the DeKalb County District Attorney’s Office and DeKalb police. The search was part of an ongoing investigation into allegations concerning the mishandling of school construction projects.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

The investigation was initiated at the request of the DeKalb school system’s administration, but the exact reason for the search of Lewis’ home is not yet clear. However, in October, the residence and office of DeKalb’s former Chief Operating Officer, Patricia Pope, were searched after allegations arose that she illegally steered contracts to her husband, an architect, and construction companies with which she had connections. Pope is still being investigated by the District Attorney’s Office.

Our criminal defense lawyers have successfully represented several federal, state and local officials who have been accused of public corruption. Public corruption cases are often difficult to handle due to political pressures, community outcries and heavy media coverage. A good criminal defense attorney will work to protect his client’s reputation within community in addition to fighting any pending criminal charges. Through early intervention a defense attorney can help to ensure that allegations do not lead to false news reports, disciplinary actions or any other occurrences which could potentially harm one’s reputation.

Gwinnett police have charged Lori Reineke, 48, with homicide by vehicle for striking and killing a pedestrian with her vehicle while allegedly texting. This is the first case in Gwinnett County where authorities have charged a driver with homicide by vehicle for texting.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

Reineke was driving her Ford Edge through an intersection on Sugarloaf Parkway when she struck and killed 48-year-old James Eaton III. The accident occurred around 8 p.m. on October 30 during dark and rainy conditions. Police reports indicate that Eaton stepped into the crosswalk while Reineke had a green light. Reineke was not speeding or violating any other traffic laws.

Gwinnett police arrested Reineke on the notion that the outcome may have been different had she not been texting. Reineke’s defense attorney, Larry Delan, has publicly stated that his client was not texting at the time of the accident. Delan also believes that authorities are using Reineke as a test case in hopes of expanding vehicular homicide prosecutions. Currently, texting while driving is not a crime in Georgia although proposed legislation may change that in the near future.

Under Georgia law, homicide by vehicle is generally punished as a misdemeanor when a minor traffic violation results in the death of a person. However, the offense can be prosecuted as a felony if the driver was driving recklessly, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, fleeing a police officer, involved in a hit and run or failed to stop for a school bus.

Our criminal defense attorneys have successfully resolved several vehicular homicide cases. One of the most powerful defenses to a homicide by vehicle charge is to show that the driver’s conduct did not cause the death. As in this case, there are many times when the deceased’s own actions largely contributed to the death. Another powerful defense is to argue that the driver did not intend the act which resulted in the death. A good criminal defense attorney will work with law enforcement and prosecutors to show that his client is not criminally liable. Early intervention can often lead to dismissed or reduced charges.

On Monday, a DeKalb County judge declared a mistrial in the case of a Dunwoody woman accused of shooting and killing her wealthy husband. The mistrial was handed down after jurors became deadlocked as to whether the woman acted in self-defense.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

The week-long trial forced jurors to answer whether Lona Scott, 47, shot her husband six times to protect herself or whether she was after his millions of dollars. After 20 hours of deliberation, the jury, which consisted of four women and eight men, were evenly divided as to guilt. It was at that time that Superior Court Judge Cynthia Brown issued the mistrial.

Lona’s husband, Ralph C. “Cliff” Scott, 42, was described as a muscular man who ran a successful trucking company. Lona and Ralph Scott wedded in 2000 and endured a turbulent marriage with alleged past acts of violence and cheating.

During trial, jurors heard Lona Scott explain how her husband, Ralph C. “Cliff” Scott, became angered late one night in March of 2008 after she refused to have sex with him or talk about the divorce petition she had filed. She then described to jurors the scene that took place in the couple’s master bedroom. Cliff Scott apparently pulled Lona’s hair and put her in a choke-hold. He only released her after she told him that he was going to wake their 5 year old daughter. Lona then retrieved a .22 caliber hand gun from a desk in hopes of leaving the home safely.

However, Cliff Scott refused to let her leave and told her that he could kill her since she had a gun. He then allegedly charged after Lona at which time she fired a single bullet into his chest. Lona claims that Cliff charged her again causing her to pull the trigger five more times. Three of those bullets struck Cliff in the elbows and forehead. The other two lodged in his back as he turned and fell to the floor. Lona then called 911.

Defense attorney Brian Steel, of the Steel Law Firm in Atlanta, asked Lona Scott why she did it. She told jurors, “Because he was going to kill me.” However, Assistant District Attorney John Melvin believes that money was the true motive. Melvin argued to jurors that Lona was after Cliff Scott’s five million dollar estate. Melvin explained that Lona became enraged after learning that Cliff was in the process of transferring his money into a secretive account in the Bahamas where he planned to live.

The District Attorney’s Office expects to retry the case soon.

The District Attorney for Gwinnett County has impaneled a special grand jury to investigate four land purchases made by county officials. The reason for the investigation centers on the purchase price of the parcels of land and possible political connections between county commissioners and land developers.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

Closed door hearings began last Friday. At the conclusion of the investigation, the special grand jury is expected to issue a report stating its findings as well as whether any individuals should be indicted. The judges who makeup the Superior Court of Gwinnett County will then vote as to whether any further actions should be taken.

At Friday’s hearing, Jock Connell, Phil Hoskins, Steve North and Chuck Warbington appeared before the panel. Connell, a former county administrator, worked for the county for 20 years before retiring in December. Hoskins, the director of community service, oversees the county’s park department. North heads the department which supervises land purchases, and Warbington is a representative on the county planning commission.

Gwinnett County saw a similar investigation 1989 when a former DA impaneled a special grand jury to look into allegations of price-fixing on school milk contracts.

Our criminal defense attorneys have successfully represented several local, state and federal officials who have been charged with corruption offenses. Public corruption cases can be quite difficult due to intense media exposure and political pressures. In addition to fighting any criminal charges, a good defense attorney will work to ensure that allegations of corruption do not lead to false media reports, discipline, or any other actions which could potentially damage one’s reputation.

A former Bibb County Sheriff’s Deputy stands trial in federal court for allegedly enticing a child for sex. Prosecutors told jurors that he arranged to meet a mother and her 7-year-old child for sex in Sandy Springs. His criminal defense attorney argued that he was role-playing and never intended to have sex with the child.

The Macon Telegraph has the story.

Federal prosecutors say 43-year-old Gregory Todd Bowden, of Byron, drove to a Sandy Springs restaurant to meet the fictitious mother and her daughter for sex. An FBI agent with the Innocent Images Task Force testified that she initially made contact with Bowden in an online chatroom sometime in October 2008. The agent then explained a series of online chats, emails and telephone calls she had with Bowden which spanned around five months.

According to the agent, Bowden initially asked her to join a virtual role-playing relationship. Their chats eventually evolved into setting up an actual meeting in Sandy Springs where Bowden was arrested. One chat reveals Bowden expressing concern that the girl may possibly tell others of the sexual activity. He was also quoted as saying “I don’t want to go to jail.”

In addition to online chats, the jury was shown various pictures including a photo of a woman and a child which the agent had sent to Bowden. Jurors were also shown pictures that Bowden sent to the agent including his face and a man’s genitals.

Bowden’s attorney, Franklin J. Hogue, told jurors in opening statements that Bowden only intended to role play with the woman in an incestuous fantasy. This argument coincides with statements Bowden gave authorities when he was arrested in February. Specifically, he told agents that he did not think the girl was real.

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.

Former Marietta High School teacher Christopher King, 36, was found not guilty a few weeks ago after prosecutors accused him of having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old student. The trial ended when Cobb County Superior Court Judge Robert Flournoy granted Cobb County defense attorney Scott Semrau’s request for a directed verdict. Judge Flournoy agreed with Semrau that prosecutors failed to put forth any evidence that the alleged victim did not consent to the relationship.

The state’s evidence showed that King and the student began a relationship in the fall of 2008 after meeting through the school’s newspaper club for which King was the faculty advisor. The relationship soon turned sexual in nature and was eventually ended when school officials and the alleged victim’s father found out. The Cobb County District Attorney’s Office then filed the charge of sexual assault against a person in custody despite the fact that King and the alleged victim have consistently maintained that the relationship was mutual and consensual.

TrialClips covered the trial, along with other TV and print media. Here is a clip of Defense Attorney Semrau's opening statement from the TrialClips YouTube channel:

The decision to prosecute King swirled with controversy, since it followed a Georgia Supreme Court ruling which held that consent was a defense for teachers accused of sexually assaulting students 16 years or older. The Court’s decision was primarily based on Georgia’s age of consent law which allows anyone 16 years old or older to consent to sex. Thus, in such cases, a prosecutor must overcome a defendant’s defense of consent to win a conviction.

In King’s case, the state had to persuade the judge and jury that there was no consent without the alleged victim’s cooperation. During the state’s case, Assistant District Attorney Maurice Brown conducted a direct examination of Marietta High School’s principal, the detective who interviewed the alleged victim, and the father of the alleged victim. The testimony of these witnesses focused on the life of the alleged victim after the relationship was exposed such as embarrassment and having to change schools. However, the testimony failed to demonstrate a lack of consent. The state’s case was further hampered when it put the alleged victim on the stand. Instead of showing manipulation or force on King’s part, the alleged victim demonstrated that she was an independent young woman who consented to King’s advances and even pursued King.

The final witness for the state was an expert witness on child sexual abuse and the state’s last hope to show a lack of consent. On direct, the expert witness described how sexual predators will “groom” their prey through a process of buying gifts, giving compliments, and showing attention. Scott Semrau, King’s attorney, dismissed these acts as being what two consenting adults do when they engage in dating. Semrau also attacked the expert witness for her lack of knowledge and research on relationships between consenting adults.

Semrau then moved for a directed verdict citing a lack of evidence showing force or coercion. Judge Flournoy granted the motion but not before calling the relationship “gross” and “awful”. If King had been convicted, he would have faced between 10 to 30 years in prison and a lifetime on the state’s sex offender registry.

The Court of Appeals of Georgia recently upheld a trial court’s ruling which suppressed a defendant’s statement due to being involuntary. The court reasoned that the interviewing officer told that the defendant that he had committed theft by taking rather than armed robbery which induced the defendant to make the statement.

In State v. Klepper, the defendant, Klepper, was indicted for armed robbery in Fulton County. On the day in question, Klepper was suspected of committing an armed robbery in a store parking lot. An officer saw Klepper in his vehicle detained him. Officer Orrick, the investigative officer, then arrived at the scene with the alleged robbery victim. The alleged victim was able to positively identify Klepper as the perpetrator. Klepper and Orrick, who knew each other from college, began a personal conversation. During this conversation, Orrick brought up the issue of whether the alleged crime was theft by taking instead of armed robbery.

The original officer then drove Klepper to jail. During the ride, the officer stated that Orrick would probably charge Klepper with armed robbery. Klepper responded that Orrick told him it was theft by taking. Upon arriving at jail, Klepper wrote a handwritten statement in which he admitted to putting his fist under his shirt and telling the alleged victim to hand over his or her money. Klepper also wrote, “This is not an armed robbery, this is theft by taking.” On another page, Klepper had written but struck through “Please help me as much as [you] can.”

Klepper’s attorney moved to suppress these statements as involuntary and the trial court agreed even though Orrick denied telling Klepper that his actions constituted theft by taking. Upon appeal, the state argued that the proffered evidence only showed a hope of benefit that began in Klepper’s own head. However, it is well established law that for a statement to be admissible it must be made voluntarily, without being induced by another by the slightest hope of benefit or remotest fear if injury. The state bears the burden of showing that a statement is voluntary by a preponderance of the evidence, and the trial court considers the totality of the circumstances when deciding if the statement is voluntary. On appeal, a trial court’s factual findings will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous.

When the appellate court reviewed the evidence, it found that the trial court’s factual findings were supported by the evidence. Specifically, the court noted that 1.) Orrick admitted to starting the conversation concerning the lesser offense 2.) Klepper told the original officer of the conversation with Orrick and 3.) Klepper admitted to the lesser offense in his written statement. As a result, Klepper’s custodial statements were suppressed.

Our criminal defense lawyers have won numerous suppression hearings due to police officers or prosecutors making promises or threats to defendants accused of serious crimes. In our experience, there is almost always an issue of admissibility any time law enforcement garners a statements or confession through promises, manipulation, threats or physical abuse. A good criminal defense lawyer will challenge the admissibility of a confession or incriminating statement by conducting a thorough investigation including where and under what conditions the statements were given, the length of time the defendant was interrogated, what promises or threats were made, and whether the defendant was intoxicated or mentally impaired.

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.

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.

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.