Court Ruling on Blood Alcohol Testing Machine Challenge

The State Attorney's Office says the panel of judges ruled that sobriety testing devices used were in fact federally approved ones. This denial of 400 defense DUI motions is the third unsuccessful challenge to the Intoxilyzer 8000 breath instrument since 2005. If the motion had passed the defendants would have successfully suppressed the breath test results and many would have had their DUI cases thrown out. The seven judges ruled unanimously that the Intoxilyzer was properly tested by the Department of Transportation and has been a "conforming product" since 2002.

DUI CASES NO LONGER ON HOLD IN COURT-- Sun-Sentinel, http://www.sun-sentinel.com, March 23, 2010.

DUI CASES TO MOVE FORWARD AFTER JUDGES REJECT CHALLENGE TO BLOOD-ALCOHOL TESTING MACHINE-- The Palm Beach Post, http://www.palmbeachpost.com, March 23, 2010

Voices That Speak To Prosecutors

Excessive influence over a prosecution can be exerted by victims.

Every day in our criminal courts, prosecutors and defense attorneys battle over the merits of charges, the admissibility of evidence, the proper sentences for offenses, and ultimately about the true meaning of different people’s actions. In addition to the lawyers and the judge, the parties that influence cases are law enforcement officers, victims, witnesses, and politicians.

Victims have the right to be heard as enshrined Florida’s constitution in Article 1, Section 16(b). Florida Statutes, Section 960.0021 specifies many of these rights which include the right to be heard at all crucial stages of criminal proceedings and to consult with the state attorney’s office.

Many times victims who have been stripped of their dignity feel empowered through participation. Similarly, victims can exert excessive influence over a prosecution. When they do the symptoms can be the filing of questionable charges and requests for excessive sanctions.

Defense attorneys strive to provide alternative views of the case. In doing so they challenge the voices that normally garner a prosecutor’s attention. Sometimes these challenges are perceived as hostile by victims who are already raw from the process. This can make for intense dialogue during negotiation and sentencing. Sometimes prosecutors decide not to handle the responsibility of a key decision in a case and they defer to the judge to do the "heavy lifting."

The Supreme Court stated in Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1975) that "we recognize that the duties of the prosecutor in his role as advocate for the State involve actions preliminary to the initiation of a prosecution and actions apart from the courtroom. A prosecuting attorney is required constantly, in the course of his duty as such, to make decisions on a wide variety of sensitive issues. These include questions of whether to present a case to a grand jury, whether to file an information, whether and when to prosecute, whether to dismiss an indictment against particular defendants, which witnesses to call, and what other evidence to present. Preparation, both for the initiation of the criminal process and for a trial, may require the obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating of evidence. At some point, and with respect to some decisions, the prosecutor no doubt functions as an administrator rather than as an officer of the court. Drawing a proper line between these functions may present difficult questions . . ."

No doubt prosecutors face many difficult questions. This brief article does not even address a whole host of other critical issues prosecutors face like how to deal with exculpatory evidence, making proper closing arguments, the burden of proof, and presenting satisfactory statistics for politicians with budget money, among others.

Ultimately, the purpose of this rambling vignette is to acknowledge the difficult job of prosecutors. They have many voices clamoring for their attention.

Long-term Impacts On Criminal Convictions

Losing parental rights is a significant impact resulting from a criminal conviction, even while it is a collateral consequence of the conviction.

Everyone knows that a prison sentence entails much more than simply serving the time. A convicted felon will be reminded of his mistake for the rest of his life. Whether it be obtaining employment, registering to vote, or applying for a driver’s license; there are many different ways a convicted felon is reminded of when she broke the law. A recent Florida Supreme Court decision reminds us how a conviction can also terminate parental rights.

B.C. v. Florida Department of Children and Families, 29 Fla. L. Weekly S 508 (2004) involved the termination of parental rights of a father serving a prison sentence. Section 39.806(1)(d)(1), Florida Statutes (2003) states that, "The department may petition for the termination of parental rights when the parent of a child is incarcerated in a state or federal correctional institution and the period of time for which the parent is expected to be incarcerated will constitute a substantial portion of the period of time before the child will attain the age of 18 years." Attorneys, especially those practicing dependency law, are very familiar with this statute section. However, the issue in B.C. was whether "substantial portion" was to be weighed against the entire period of incarceration, or if the language pertained to only the remaining time to be served after the petition for termination is filed.

First, the court considered how much time constitutes a "substantial portion of the time before the child reaches 18." The father in B.C. had approximately four years left to serve in his seven year seven month prison sentence. The father’s four-year old child had fourteen years remaining until reaching the age of majority. The Florida Supreme Court agreed with the trial court and concluded that, "the four years remaining in the father’s sentence was not a substantial portion of the remaining fourteen-year minority of the child." Id. at 511.

If the court considered the entire period of incarceration, the father in B.C. would have his parental rights terminated because his total sentence was more than 50% of the remaining fourteen-year minority, which would be considered a substantial portion. However, in this same situation, if the court considered the time remaining on the prison sentence, this same individual will be able to remain a father when he completes his prison sentence. B.C. held that the period of incarceration remaining after the petition is filed is the appropriate standard. Id. at 509. Applying this rationale, B.C. concluded that before parental rights may be terminated, "the trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the time remaining in the parent’s incarceration constitutes a substantial portion of the time remaining before the child or children attain the age of eighteen years." Id. at 511.

Why is B.C. beneficial to a defense attorney? If you represent a parent in a criminal case, you may have to advise her of the long-term impacts a conviction may have on her future. It is crucial to be aware of B.C. because accepting a plea of X years may result in the termination of parental rights. While a collateral consequence of the conviction, losing parental rights is still a significant impact resulting from a criminal conviction.

B.C. is a constant reminder of the long-range impacts of criminal convictions. Attorneys who inform their clients of all possible negative impacts from a conviction are providing the highest quality legal services.

Restitution In Criminal Cases

If your holiday season always seems to go by too fast, like ours do. Just a few of the activities common to the holiday are spending time with loved ones, relaxing away from the work environment, and breaking out the winter clothes. Also on this list, of course, is gift giving. With the hustle and bustle past, chances are you have a reminder of the holidays in the form of one or more credit card bills. Now that all of your creditors are looking for your restitution, what better topic to discuss than restitution in criminal cases.

There are numerous issues in proving restitution in a criminal case. Florida law provides that "in addition to any criminal punishment imposed, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for (1) damage or loss related to the defendant’s criminal episode, unless it finds clear and compelling reasons not to order such restitution; and (2) damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense." Although restitution can be an available option, it must first be proven by the state.

The state must satisfy two tests before restitution can be imposed on a criminal defendant. In Schuette v. State, 822 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 2002), the Florida supreme court established both the causal relationship test and the significant relationship test.

Schuette explained that, "To compel a defendant to pay restitution, the State has the burden of establishing causation, as well as the burden of demonstrating the amount of loss sustained by the victim as a result of the offense. Further, the State must establish both causation and the amount of loss or damages by a preponderance of the evidence." Id. at 1278-1279. If the causal relationship test is satisfied, the state must then prove the significant relationship test before restitution can be awarded.

The significant relationship test involves the state proving that the defendant’s conduct was the proximate cause of the particular harm. Schuette pointed out that, "The victim should be entitled to recover damages through criminal restitution if the causal connection between the criminal offense and the damage is comparable to that proximate causation which would allow the victim to relate comparable damages to a wrongful act in tort." Id. at 1282. Thus, the act committed by the defendant must be reasonably foreseeable to result in the type of harm sustained by the victim.

In Molter v. State, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D 2590 (2nd DCA Nov. 17, 2004), the court analyzes several aspects of restitution. First, an objection as to the amount of restitution mandates a hearing on the issue. Second, a prosecutor’s unsworn assertions about the total value of items is not evidence and can not be used to establish value. Instead, there must be record evidence sufficient to support the state’s preponderance burden. Finally, since restitution serves as a form of rehabilitation, deterrence, and retribution and is not just for compensation, fair market value may not always be adequate. In this case, the trial court had assessed family heirlooms at higher than market value.

Restitution is not awarded simply because the defendant is convicted of a qualifying offense. The state must first prove that restitution is appropriate. If restitution is requested from the state, it is the job of the defense attorney to protect the financial interests of the defendant by demanding proper record proof of the causal relationship and the significant relationship tests.

Michael Maddux, P.A. can help you!

Michael Maddux, P.A. can help you State Criminal Defense, FL Statute 3.850, State Criminal Defense Appeals, Federal Criminal Defense, D.U.I., Formal Review Hearings, Federal Criminal Defense Appeals, Juvenile Delinquency, Juvenile
Delinquency Appeals, Juvenile Dependency, Juvenile Dependency Appeals,
Personal Injury, Automobile Accidents, Motorcycle Accidents, Premise
Liability, Wrongful Death, P.I.P. Litigation