Georgia Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

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 One eighth grade student has already been suspended and another has withdrawn.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.

Athens-Clarke County police claim that fake reports of crime are reaching epidemic levels. In response, authorities have announced that they will begin prosecuting anyone they believe to have invented a crime.

The Athens Banner-Herald has the story.

In one recent case, a UGA law student told police that she had been mugged on College Station Road after walking home from work one night. Police say that the story was false and that the student was only trying to gain sympathy from her husband. Several other high profile cases have also turned out to be nothing more than made-up stories.

The crackdown on false reporting is due largely to the fact that police claim to spend a great deal of resources investigating fake crimes. This includes interviewing witnesses, interrogating suspects and collecting evidence. Authorities are also worried that the fake crimes will give Athens an inflated crime rate and make some parts of the city appear to be more crime ridden than they actually are.

Under Georgia law, the false reporting of a crime is a misdemeanor and is punishable by one year in jail. Prosecutors in Athens have pledged to make sure that offenders actually serve jail time if they are convicted of the offense.

Unfortunately, false reports of crimes do happen. Many times, it will take an experienced defense lawyer to investigate the charges and convince the prosecutor that the alleged "victim" simply made the whole thing up. In many cases, a false arrest can lead to the loss of a job, the expense of significant attorney's fees, public humiliation, and possible jail time.

We hope that the police in Athens, and elsewhere in Georgia, remain diligent for false reports of crimes. If they do a thorough job of investigating these claims, some wrongful arrests could be avoided.

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.

Georgia’s governor and members of the Georgia Senate have introduced legislation that would create a special unit designed to combat mortgage fraud.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

Currently, Georgia ranks fourth in the nation for mortgage fraud. It is estimated that mortgage fraud referrals have cost Georgia around $145 million from 2005 to 2008. The special law enforcement unit that has been proposed would investigate crimes involving mortgage fraud throughout the state. Legislators hope that the unit will act as a deterrent and result in more prosecutions. If the unit is created, it will draw resources from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation as well as the Department of Banking and Finance.

Under Georgia’s Residential Mortgage Fraud Act, a person convicted of mortgage fraud may receive a one to ten year prison sentence as well as a $5,000 fine. If a person engages in a pattern of mortgage fraud, he or she could face a three to 20 year sentence and a $100,000 fine.

Our criminal defense attorneys have successfully represented numerous clients charged with mortgage fraud, including brokers, attorneys, investors, agents, appraisers and "straw-buyers.". A key element of mortgage fraud is knowledge. In other words, the state must be able to prove that a person knowingly engaged in the alleged fraud. A good criminal defense attorney will intervene early to work with prosecutors and law enforcement to show that his client had no knowledge of any alleged fraud or illegal activities. This early intervention can often lead to dismissed or reduced charges well before trial. Our lawyers have been able to get several mortgage fraud charges dismissed or successful resolved well before an indictment or trial.

Today, federal, state and local law enforcement officers spanned out across Georgia looking for individuals possessing child porn. The combined effort, known as Operation Restore Hope, has led to 25 arrests and 143 seized computers so far. The operation began at first light and is expected to run well into the night.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

The operation consisted of 24 local police agencies which came from Gwinnett, DeKalb, Clayton, Cobb, Paulding, Hall and Cherokee counties. There were also federal agents from the FBI, ICE, the U.S. Marshal’s Service and the Secret Service. All in all, 40 teams were sent to addresses across the state in hopes of arresting 89 different people.

The background investigation began three months ago out of the GBI’s office in Cleveland. Police tracked various peer-to-peer networks which allow computer users to download videos and pictures containing child pornography from other users. Authorities then obtained search warrants for the addresses of these users. Tuesday’s sweeps were planned to coincide with the time that the users would be home in order to maximize the number of arrests. Some of those arrested will face prosecution in federal court.

Our criminal defense lawyers have successfully defended numerous clients accused of internet offenses including possession of child pornography. In our experience, these types of cases can be defended in many ways. For instance, it is not uncommon for law enforcement to charge people who were unaware that illegal videos or images were being stored on their computers. A good criminal defense attorney will show this by hiring a computer forensics expert to determine how the unlawful images got onto the computer. It is also not uncommon for the search warrant which allowed for the seizure of the computer to be deficient in some respect. This can be shown by conducting a thorough examination of the police investigation as well as examining the language of the search warrant itself.

Regardless of the defense, it is vital that an experienced criminal defense firm be retained as soon as possible after the arrest or search. Many times, a lawyer's early involvement in the case can make a huge difference in the outcome.

A Macon man accused of rape has asked a judge to dismiss the charge, since DNA evidence which linked him to the crime was destroyed by police in 2006. The man’s attorney argued for the charges to be dropped based on due process grounds.

The Macon Telegraph has the story.

John Paul Battle, 25, was originally sent to prison in 2008 after being convicted of aggravated assault. Last spring authorities found that his DNA matched the DNA police recovered from a rape victim in 2002. The rape victim then picked Battle out of a lineup. Authorities also took a fresh DNA sample from Battle and concluded that the DNA recovered from the victim matched Battle’s.

However, the DNA evidence which came from the 2002 rape was destroyed sometime in 2006. The evidence included swabs, a rape kit and a condom. Battle’s attorney, Allen Wheeler, filed a motion arguing that Battle has due process rights which includes having the original evidence tested by an independent expert. And since that evidence no longer exists, it cannot be independently tested. Wheeler also pointed to a 2003 Georgia law requiring police to preserve biological evidence relating to a defendant’s identity.

Prosecutors argue there is no constitutional violation, because police did not act in bad faith when they failed to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence. The detective in charge of the 2002 rape case marked the evidence to be destroyed in 2005. It is unknown as to why the detective marked the evidence, but Macon Police did state that the detective is no longer employed with the department.

Our criminal defense lawyers have handled numerous cases in which potentially beneficial evidence was destroyed or lost. Cases such as these can involve destroyed DNA samples, shattered cell phones, lost blood and urine specimens, and missing finger prints. In our experience, there is almost always an issue of whether a person’s rights were violated any time this type of evidence is destroyed or lost. If it can be shown that the evidence was destroyed in bad faith, the court may be forced to drop the case against the defendant.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 DeKalb County Recorder’s Court was plagued by a ticket scam earlier this year which led to the indictments of three employees and five other individuals. A grand jury recently concluded that the court is haunted by lax oversight and leadership problems which continue to make it vulnerable to fraud.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

The DeKalb County Recorder’s Court handles traffic tickets and misdemeanor crimes. In 2008, a review of the court found that millions of dollars in fines were never paid to the court. Three employees were then indicted this year in an alleged ticket-fixing scam. One of those employees pleaded guilty last week to violating the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and received a 12 month sentence.

A grand jury was empaneled during July and August to review the court’s operations and oversight. It heard testimony from various officials including Chief Judge R. Joy Walker who is the head of the DeKalb County Recorder’s Court. The grand jury found that there was no oversight at the time of the scam, and that Judge Walker took no action even after learning of the scam.

Judge Walker disputes the findings and claims that action was taken. She believes that court workers would carry out the fraud by telling judges that police officers had reduced tickets from fines to warnings. The workers would then charge fees for dismissing the tickets. Walker claims that upon learning of the scam she created a new policy in which an officer would have to show up in court or put a request in writing in order to downgrade a ticket from a fine to a warning.

DeKalb County CEO Burrell Ellis stated that the grand jury’s findings confirmed prior suspicions, and that the findings justify an audit of the court. The grand jury also recommended several changes including more officers to enforce warrants and an improved computer system to monitor cases.

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 House Judiciary Committee passed the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009 last week which would remove the words “cocaine base” in federal drug statutes. If the bill becomes law, it would effectively close the wide gap between sentences for crack and powder cocaine.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune has the story.

In 1986, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act which created the vast disparity. Many of the original supporters and drafters of the 1986 law have since come out to oppose it. The law essentially created a 100-to-1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine. For instance, a person convicted of possessing five grams of crack cocaine will receive a minimum sentence of five years. However, it would take 500 grams of powder cocaine for a person to receive the same sentence.

This disparity has fallen hardest upon African Americans. It is estimated that around 80% of those convicted of crack offenses are black even though the majority of crack users are white or Hispanic.

President Obama’s Administration seems to be onboard with the proposed change in the law. Last month Attorney General Eric Holder was quoted as saying that the difference in punishment is “simply wrong.” The President will have the opportunity to sign the bill into law assuming both the House and the Senate vote in favor.

And not a moment too soon, although it is uncertain whether this proposed law will be retroactive. It's too early to tell if this legislation will help those people who have already been convicted under the existing version of this law.

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 Thursday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a state’s laboratory analyst must testify in person at a criminal defendant’s trial if the state wishes to introduce forensic reports showing a substance to be drugs.

In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the defendant, Melendez-Diaz, was arrested for distributing and trafficking in cocaine. Police were notified that he was acting in a suspicious manner while working at a Kmart and witnessed him make an apparent drug sale outside the store. An officer then detained and searched Melendez-Diaz and found white plastic bags containing a substance resembling cocaine. More bags were found in the police car after he had been transported to jail. The police submitted the substance to a state laboratory for a chemical analysis.

At trial, the prosecution entered into evidence the bags holding the substance and three “certificates of analysis” which were sworn to by a notary public as required by state law. The certificates stated that the substance was in fact cocaine and gave the weight as well. The defense objected to the evidence, since under the former Supreme Court case of Crawford v. Washington, a defendant’s accuser must testify in court unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Specifically, Crawford requires a witness to testify at trial when giving “testimonial” statements. Crawford was based on every citizen’s right to confront his accusers under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution. The trial court disagreed with the defense and allowed the certificates to be introduced into evidence without compelling the analyst who made the reports to testify. Melendez-Diaz was then convicted. He lost on appeal until his case reached the Supreme Court of the United States.

The state argued that analysts do not have to testify in court since they are not accusatory witnesses. The Court disagreed with the state and determined that a witness is not excused from testifying at trial simply because he did not interrogate the witness. A witness is also not excused simply because his statements come from neutral and scientific testing. The Court found that the statements on the certificates were the type of statements Crawford intended to cover, since an objective witness would have reasonably believed that the statements made on the certificates would be available for use at trial. Furthermore, the purpose of the evidence was to show the substance’s composition and weight for which he was on trial for. Thus, information stating that a substance is a drug is in fact testimonial in nature which requires a witness to testify at trial.

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.

A Gwinnett County woman was arrested last Friday for restraining her 15-year-old son with handcuffs while trying to perform an exorcism. A family friend was also arrested with the mother.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

Sandra Alfred, 46, has been charged with false imprisonment and cruelty to children for restraining her son against his will. The family friend, Larry Powell, was also charged with cruelty to children.

Police say that on June 10 one of the two called Lilburn Police to report an unruly juvenile. Upon investigating, police discovered that the boy had been restrained with handcuffs against his will. Police also learned that the boy had not been allowed to eat or drink for 12 hours at a time over a period of three days. Alfred and Powell apparently told police that they were trying to perform an exorcism on the boy. Police believe the mother may suffer from delusions.

The boy was treated at Gwinnett Medical Center for injuries and dehydration before being released. For now, Alfred and Powell are being held in jail and are scheduled to appear in court on June 26.

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.

Since 1998, Georgia has collected the DNA of certain felons in a database in the hopes of solving cold cases and future crimes. Authorities accomplish this effort by taking DNA found at a crime a scene and comparing it with the DNA of prisoners collected in the database. Thus far, the database has led to 1,415 cases being solved in Georgia. There were 75 solved cases in the month of May alone.

The Macon Telegraph has the story.

The state’s DNA database known as the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) currently contains more than 186,000 samples from Georgia prisoners. The original database began in the mid 90s when the FBI used it as a test program. Authorities realized that a DNA profile is essentially a bunch of numbers, and that it could easily compare one sample of DNA against another sample through a database. Congress then passed a law allowing the federal government to keep a database of DNA from offenders and evidence, and states were able to decide which offenders would be required to give DNA samples.

Georgia became the first state to form a state database in 1998. In the early years, only people convicted of sex crimes were put into the database. This rule expanded to include all felons sent to prison or released on or after July 1, 2000, inmates sentenced to death or serving life sentences, and those sentenced to felony probation for violent crimes.

To collect DNA, prisoners were once subjected to giving blood, but after 2000, DNA began to be collected by swabbing the inside of the cheek. DNA that is collected from evidence is automatically put into the database. The samples collected in Georgia’s CODIS are then sent to the FBI’s national database. This allows law enforcement from all over the country to compare different samples. To date, the database has matched 287 crimes in other states to Georgia offenders.

If a match is found, analysts take the original samples of DNA from the suspect and the evidence and run the test a second time. The proper law enforcement agents are then contacted, and those agents are then required to obtain new DNA sample for a third evaluation.

Most crimes solved with CODIS are sexual in nature; however, the database has also solved burglaries and robberies. In one case, a man was arrested for burglary after his DNA was found on a cigarette butt he left behind at a burglarized home.

All in all, the database represents a powerful tool for law enforcement. That power is only expected to grow as more and more people are taken into the criminal justice system and required to turn over their DNA.

DNA has become very important in solving cases in Georgia and throughout the U.S. DNA has also helped free some innocent people in Georgia who had been convicted of crimes they did not commit, thanks to the work of groups like the Georgia Innocence Project. We hope that this database is used properly, and helps free the innocent as well as help resolve serious unsolved crimes.

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.

Judge Kenneth E. Fowler has been charged with 16 counts of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct. This marks the beginning of formal proceedings against Judge Fowler by the state’s Commission on Judicial Qualifications.

The Macon Telegraph has the story.

The Commission on Judicial Qualifications has the duty of investigating complaints of judicial misconduct and for disciplining judges in Georgia. It is made up of two judges, three attorneys, and two lay people. Typically, they conduct an investigation and hold hearings into allegations of misconduct. After these proceedings are held, the Commission may recommend to the Supreme Court of Georgia that a judge should be removed, disciplined, or retired from the bench. The Supreme Court makes the ultimate determination.

In this case, the Commission alleges that Judge Fowler abused his power and suppressed the rights of defendants who came before him. Among the 16 counts, the Commission alleges that Judge Fowler told criminal defendants that they had the burden to prove their innocence, expressed bias in criminal matters, gave false or misleading information to criminal defendants, improperly questioned defendants, held fees paid by criminal defendants in his own account and failed to turnover the fees to the county, failed to be courteous to individuals in probate court, improperly used the prestige of being a judge, and allowed unqualified persons to serve as interpreters in court.

Judge Fowler has 30 days to respond the charges against him. If he chooses to fight the charges, a hearing will be set by the Commission at the earliest convenient date.

Our firm has previously represented a probate judge from Middle Georgia and helped that judge defend a JQC complaint. It is important for lawyers involved in these sensitive matters to be sure that such a complaint not lead to discipline, false press reports, or anything else that could permanetly damage the judge's reputation.

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.

Georgia’s sex offender law has come under intense fire from critics, since a provision of the law requires some people who did not commit sex crimes to register as sex offenders. On Monday, the lawyer of a man who had to register for being convicted of false imprisonment moved a Fulton County judge to declare the provision as being unconstitutional.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

When Jake Rainer was 18, he and some friends picked up a 17 year old girl with the intention of buying marijuana from her. After taking the marijuana, they drove her to a cul de sac and dropped her off without paying. As a result, Rainer pleaded guilty to robbery and false imprisonment and was sentenced to five years in prison and five years on probation. He also had to register as a sex offender.

Anyone convicted of kidnapping or false imprisonment of a minor in Georgia is required to register as a sex offender. Whether sexual conduct was involved is irrelevant. Aside from the stigma, registered sex offenders cannot live or work within 1,000 feet of anywhere children congregate. This includes schools, parks, and pools. Under Georgia law, Rainer cannot ask a judge to be removed from the registry until 10 years after the completion of the sentence. For Rainer, that will be in 2020.

Rainer’s Atlanta criminal attorney, Ann Marie Fitz, argued that the provision of the Georgia sex offender law making her client register should be held as unconstitutional, since Rainer never committed a sex crime. The Attorney General’s Office sympathized but simply argued that the law is the law. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Jerry Baxter also sympathized, and he is expected to make a ruling on the matter soon. However, Judge Baxter seemed inclined to uphold the law, and he suggested that Rainer should try to get his false imprisonment conviction stricken from his record.

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.

A fifth grader at Dunaire Elementary School in DeKalb County committed suicide last Thursday. Family members say it was because he was being bullied at school, and the DeKalb District Attorney’s Office has stated that it will look into the matter.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

The 11 year old, Jaheem Herrera, apparently hung himself in his families home. His mother claims that she had complained to school officials about her son being bullied and taunted on previous occasions.

District Attorney Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming will speak with Jaheem’s parents and school officials before deciding if any criminal charges should be brought. If charges are brought, it would be the first case of its kind while Fleming has been the DA.

Charging school officials will be difficult considering the facts of this case, but there are several theories of possibile criminal and/or civil liability that could be explored.

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.

In a landmark 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States determined that police may not conduct a warrantless search of a car after its occupant has been arrested unless he poses a threat to officer safety, or there is a need to seize evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made. The decision is a radical departure from the longstanding rule that police may search a vehicle after arresting its occupant.

In Arizona v. Gant, the defendant, Gant, was arrested for driving with a suspended license and having a warrant for failing to appear in court on a prior charge of driving without a license. The arrest stemmed from an anonymous tip that an address Gant was staying at was being used to sell drugs. When police knocked on the front door, Gant answered and told the police that the owner was out. Police later discovered Gant had a warrant out for his arrest and returned to the scene. When police returned, they arrested two other people who were placed in the back of police cars. They then saw Gant drive into the parking lot. Gant parked his car about 30 feet away from the officers. He then got out of the car and began walking towards the officers. Gant and the officers met about 10-12 feet from the vehicle. Gant was immediately arrested and placed in the backseat of a patrol car. In total, there were five officers and three arrested individuals. The officers then conducted a search incident to the arrest and discovered cocaine in the pocket of a jacket on the backseat of Gant’s car. As a result, Gant was also charged with possession of a narcotic drug for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia.

Grant moved to suppress the evidence found in the jacket on the grounds that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court upheld the search, since the Supreme Court decided in New York v. Belton that officers may search the compartments in a vehicle after the occupant’s arrest. Gant was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison. The decision was then appealed.

The Arizona Supreme Court found the search unreasonable despite Belton. That Court relied on the logic of an earlier Supreme Court case, Chimel v. California, which suggested that a search incident to an arrest is unreasonable when officer safety and preservation of evidence is no longer an issue. The court reasoned that since Gant was in the back of a police car he posed no threat to safety or evidence. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Court rejected the idea that an officer may search a vehicle under any circumstances so long as the occupant has been arrested. Instead, the Court agreed with the Arizona Supreme Court and adopted the Chimel rationale which authorizes police to search a vehicle incident to arrest only when the arrested individual is unsecured and within reaching distance of the vehicle’s passenger compartments at the time of the search. However, the Court went further to say that a search incident to arrest is also valid when it is reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to the crime for which the arrest was made may be in the vehicle. Since Gant and the other arrested individuals were of no threat to officer safety or the preservation of evidence and police could not expect to find evidence of driving with a suspended license in Gant’s vehicle, the search was held to be unreasonable.

The decision fractured the Court in a way which defied ideology. The majority opinion was written by Stevens and joined by Thomas, Ginsburg, Souter, and Scalia (who also wrote a concurring opinion). Alito, Breyer, Roberts, and Kennedy dissented.

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.

A program known as Internet Crimes Against Children leads to hundreds of arrests for online solicitation and child pornography in Georgia every year. A recent three-month sweep led to 23 arrests across the state.

The Savannah Morning News has the story.

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation heads up the federal program in Georgia which began in 2002. Across the state, there are nearly 100 affiliate police agencies involved in the program. In many cases, police use tactics similar to those seen on the popular television show “To Catch a Predator.” Agents pretending to be underage girls will engage in conversation with men in online chat rooms. Sometimes these conversations will turn sexual in nature and the men may ask to meet the underage girl for sex. When the men show up at the meeting spot, police will make the arrest.

There are about 700 such arrests every year in Georgia. Police maintain that there is no entrapment, since the officers only respond to whatever the men in the chat room initiate. Additionally, officers claim that it is always the men who urge a meeting.

Some of our clients, however, were entrapped and falsely charged. That's why it is vital to have retain a criminal defense lawyer with experience in this area if you are charged with this type of offense.

The GBI program also attempts to target anyone who possesses, distributes, or manufactures child pornography, and agents here are interconnected with law enforcement all over the nation. Tips flow into the GBI’s Atlanta office from all over the nation which are then forwarded to local police. Many times child pornography will be found on a computer in another state which came from Georgia. In some cases, they are able to trace where the pornography came from by using IP addresses to track down those who share child pornography online. When child pornography is suspected, officers will seize hard drives and search for any trace of illegal pornography.

Our firm has been extraordinarily successful in resolving these cases prior to trial so that our clients avoid prison time and, in some cases, even avoid prosecution. Our best results occur when we can get involved in the case early and review the computer forensics and alleged probable cause that led to the search.

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.

With the downturn in the economy, there has been a drastic increase in companies involved in mortgage modification scams. Federal and state authorities are beginning to crack down on such companies.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story here.

The federal government’s hope to modify or refinance up to 9 million mortgages has sparked the flurry of scams. Government officials note that the companies involved in the fraud often have official sounding names that make the borrowers think they are tied to the government. These fraudulent companies charge upfront fees of $1,000 to $3,000 for assistance with loan modifications that hardly ever pay off. Officials also note that borrowers can receive help for free from government-approved housing counselors. Consumer advocates agree that even legitimate consultants are no better than credit counselors who work with lenders at no charge.

The Federal Trade Commission has warned that these companies will use tactics such as promises to stop foreclosures, modify a loan for money upfront, or guarantees that a home will be saved. The FBI is currently investigating about 2,100 mortgage fraud cases which is a 400% increase from five years ago. The FTC has sent letters to 71 companies warning them of their suspicious advertisements and has filed complaints against others.

The response by states has been mixed. Some states have created tougher penalties for companies involved in foreclosure scams, and prosecutors in some jurisdictions have even brought criminal charges. However, many states are relying civil lawsuits.

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. Our firm is also listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers by Martindale-Hubbell.

On Monday, a federal district court judge granted an injunction against a Georgia law which bans sex offenders from volunteering at churches. The injunction will prevent Georgia from enforcing the law.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

District Judge Clarence Cooper held that allowing offenders to volunteer at churches will further public safety by providing support and stability. The plaintiffs offered testimony from several ministers who work with offenders about the healing power of volunteering at churches.

The ruling stems from a class-action suit on behalf of 16,000 sex offenders. The plaintiffs seek to overturn Georgia’s strict sex offender laws which have been described as the toughest in the country. Among the provisions, Georgia prohibits offenders from living or working within 1,000 feet of virtually anywhere children congregate. This includes schools, school bus stops, parks, pools, and churches. Plaintiffs also seek to permanently overturn the provision banning offenders from volunteering at churches. Monday’s ruling allowed this class-action suit to go forward.

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. Our firm is also listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers by Martindale-Hubbell.

No surprise, but TI was finally sentenced. And the deal was as sweet as expected. A federal judge in Atlanta sentenced rapper Clifford “T.I.” Harris Jr. to one year and one day in federal prison. The sentence stems from an incident in October 2007 in which T.I. attempted to purchase machine guns and silencers in a Midtown parking lot from undercover ATF agents.

The plea deal T.I. made with the U.S. Attorney’s Office has come under fire as another example of a celebrity receiving a light sentence. The federal sentencing guidelines suggest that a defendant who pleads guilty to such offenses should receive nearly five years in prison. However, the plea deal also required T.I. to serve 1,500 hours of community service, pay a $100,000 fine, and be confined to his home for one year. T.I. has already served over 1,000 hours of his community service requirement.

Page Pate of our firm was interviewed by Entertainment Weekly about TI's extraordinary deal. He has also previously provided expert commentary to the local media on this high-profile case.

U.S. Attorney David E. Nahmias defended the plea deal by arguing that T.I. has made hundreds of appearances in front of thousands of kids denouncing gangs and crime. The hope is that T.I.’s appearances will deter some kids from entering a life of crime. Former U.N. Ambassador and Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young also applauded the large impact T.I.’s community service has had on reaching kids in underprivileged communities. Young and T.I. worked together in a community outreach program in New York.

T.I.’s sentence of one year and one day may be reduced to around 10 months for good behavior. The sentence is set to begin in late May when he will voluntarily report to prison.

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. Our firm is also listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers by Martindale-Hubbell.

In one of our firm's recent appeals, the Georgia Supreme Court last week determined that a Georgia statute prohibiting medical doctors from issuing blank prescriptions was constitutional despite its vague language. The Court was sharply divided, and there were two separate dissenting opinions. (Our firm represents the doctor.)

In Raber v. State, Dr. Raber was charged with 33 counts of unlawfully issuing prescription forms which were signed but left blank. Dr. Raber, a small town doctor, left the pad of 33 prescriptions signed in blank with a nurse practitioner on his staff while he was out of town. The nurse took the pad to her residence. However, at the residence, the nurse’s daughter stole some prescriptions. Someone forged one of the signed prescriptions to obtain a powerful drug, and this resulted in the death of another woman who died of a drug overdose. The investigation into the death resulted in the discovery of the 33 prescriptions signed in blank by Dr. Raber.

Section (h) of a Georgia statute which deals with controlled substances states that, “[i]t shall be unlawful for any practitioner to issue any prescription document signed in blank.” Dr. Raber’s attorney argued that this law is unconstitutionally vague, because it does not define what a physician must do to “issue” a prescription document. In other words, the law does not give a physician notice that it is illegal to provide a prescription signed in blank to a member of his medical staff. The trial judge denied this argument, and the defense appealed the decision to the Georgia Supreme Court.

The Court’s majority noted prior sections of the statute in question state that a prescription is issued only when the name and address of the patient, the kind and quantity of the controlled substance, directions for taking, the signature and name of the physician, and the DEA registration number are present. The Court also noted that the other sections imply that a prescription is only issued when the “ultimate user” has received it. However, the Court found that section (h) is different, because it calls the form a “prescription document” instead of just a “prescription” which is used in the other sections. The majority reasoned that section (h) deals with only prescriptions that are signed but that have no other information listed, and thus, there does not need to be the additional information which is required by the other sections for a physician to issue a prescription. The Court also explained that the prescription does not need to be given to the “ultimate user” for it to be issued under section (h).

Thus, according to the majority, a doctor who hands a prescription signed in blank to any person for any reason has committed a felony.

Three justices dissented. Justice Hunstein found section (h) to be unconstitutionally vague and criticized the majority’s opinion as one which will lead to absurd results. For instance, Hunstein notes that a doctor who momentarily hands a signed but blank prescription to a nurse while he looks up a drug’s name has committed a felony under the majority’s interpretation. Justice Hunstein believed that the Georgia legislature enacted the statute at issue in order to punish doctors who are drug dealers. The purpose was not to incarcerate doctors who are trying to carry out their patients’ legitimate medical needs. Hunstein also argued that the majority failed to exercise common sense by giving the term “issue” a separate meaning under section (h), and that “issue” under section (h) should require that the prescription be given to the ultimate user.

Justice Melton also dissented, to which Chief Justice Sears joined, by writing that the majority’s definition of “issuance” is simply wrong. Melton believed that a prescription can only be issued when it is given to its ultimate user.

The case was covered by the National Law Journal as an important decision in the area of criminal law.

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. Our firm is also listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers by Martindale-Hubbell.

After the recent allegations hit the Peanut Corp.of America about the presence of salmonella in products it shipped from its Georgia plant, we decided to explore what sort of federal or Georgia criminal laws might apply to this case. (If you are interested in the details, a legal memo addressing food safety and criminal prosecutions under federal and Georgia law can be found after the break.)

According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the GBI was initially asked to look into state criminal charges. Later, however, the GBI decided to back off and leave the criminal investigation to the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies. But, according to an article in the Macon, Georgia Telegraph, the feds rarely bring criminal charges in food safety investigations.

Of course, the magnitude of this case may cause the feds to make an exception, and an example.

Continue reading "Georgia criminal law allows for "food safety" prosecutions" »

This is a great development. The Macon Telegraph has the story.

Anyone who has followed the work of the Georgia Innocence Project, and other Innocence Projects around the country, have no doubt been disturbed by the amount of people held in prison for crimes they did not commit. The sad fact is that many of these people were wrongfully convicted on the basis of "eyewitness testimony."

Hopefully, these new standards will help reduce the number of people falsely accused by mistaken eyewitnesses. But it's a shame that these standards could not have been adopted by the Georgia General Assembly when they were first introduced by Rep. Stephanie Stuckey Benfield.

Maybe this year?

The Cobb County Police Department has added a Light Armor Vehicle (LAV) to its arsenal. The LAV was donated and then refurbished at a cost of $45,000 for "police use."

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

Cobb County already has a Peacekeeper vehicle used by its SWAT officers. Apparently, SWAT intends to use these military-type vehicles together when making calls.

It looks like Cobb County will be well prepared in the event of a land assault, but what about its missile defense capabilities? Perhaps we will see some Patriots deployed soon.

A recent article by my friend Joe Johnson in the Athens Banner Herald reports that the GBI is cutting services again. This time, the cuts go right to the heart of the GBI's mission - regional crime labs and forensic services.

For years, Georgia's elected officials have chopped away at the GBI, reducing the once well-regarded agency to an afterthought. That is a big mistake.

For the most part, the GBI is much better equipped to handle complicated criminal cases than local sheriffs and municipal police departments. Better investigations lead to better cases, and fewer innocent people being charged with crimes they did not commit. A state-wide professional police agency benefits everyone involved in the process - prosecutors, criminal defense lawyers, and, most importantly, defendants and crime victims.

I sincerely hope all Georgians will support professional law enforcement and ask their legislator to strengthen the GBI and adequately fund its mandate. Georgia deserves no less than the best when it comes to fighting crime and protecting the innocent.

Not really surprising news, but it could be a significant development for criminal defense lawyers in Atlanta and other parts of Georgia.

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) has joined with the FBI in Georgia to staff a training center for law enforcement officers involved in cybercrime and internet criminal investigations. The center will provide training in all aspects of computer crime, from internet child pornography to identity theft and fraud involving the use of computers.

The Macon Georgia Telegraph has the story.

The FBI says that the training will help law enforcement investigate cybercrime that costs the U.S. approximately $4 billion a year. The GBI's spin is that the training will help law enforcement protect children. Not sure how the two relate, but it sure makes good press.

Officials expect 70 Georgia police departments and sheriff's offices to participate in the training. That means a lot more local enforcement of complicated computer crime laws. Not sure that is a good thing, considering some of the misguided sexual exploitation cases we have defended in the past few years. But maybe a little training is exactly what some local departments need.

Our firm has handled dozens of internet porn cases. A lot of our work has focused on the forensics of the computer investigation, an area ripe with law enforcement errors. By using computer forensics experts, we have kept several of our clients from being indicted. In other cases, we have successfully challenged the techniques used to entrap unwary internet browsers and the curious surfer. Computer porn and enticement cases can be difficult for a criminal defense attorney because the stakes are so high. A conviction on a sexual exploitation case will usually result in a significant prison sentence, and possible lifetime registration on Georgia's sex offender registry.

We have also represented clients in identity theft and other white-collar fraud cases involving the use of computers. Like computer pron and exploitation cases, computer fraud prosecutions are best handled by a criminal defense firm experienced in complex criminal cases with access to the best computer forensics experts in Georgia. While we have always seen these cases prosecuted in federal courts, we are now seeing more and more of them in Georgia state courts. In our experience, recent Georgia fraud cases run the gamut, from simple online scams (sometimes using Ebay and other online services) to complex mortgage fraud that used to be prosecuted almost exclusively in federal courts.

Many of our cases are international investigations. We have successfully represented clients in international computer crime cases in Ireland, Great Britain, Spain and other countries in Europe and around the world.

If this new training does increase the amount of state-level computer crimes being prosecuted in Georgia, it will be interesting to see how prosecutors work this cases into crowded state court dockets already filed to the brim with violent crime and drug cases.