Home Criminal Page 3

Criminal

Man Receives 180 Months for Harassing/Exploiting Children

Man Receives 180 Months for Harassing/Exploiting Children


It’s hard to read about cases that involve the sexual exploitation of minors.  This case is similar because of the actions and threats by Theodore J. Castine from Moorseville, North Carolina, but the victim was not harmed due to undercover initiatives by law enforcement and Castine is now behind bars.  


Castine was sentenced on two counts of sexual exploitation of children.  The U.S Attorney’s Office for the District of Montana announced on October 19, 2012 that Castine received 180 months in prison and a lifetime of supervised release.  


The investigation began on September 15, 2011 after the Helena Police Department was contacted by a 14-year-old girl.  She stated she received threatening text messages and was also harassed through Facebook.  She received text messages because the suspect thought she was “hot” and wanted her to send pictures of herself.  The suspect proceeded to send naked pictures of other girls in lewd positions over the next couple of text messages.  


Some of the text messages asked the female victim to send pictures of herself, and the suspect suggested poses.  If she didn’t send the pictures, the suspect threatened he was going to find her and stated said she would not like what would happen when he found her.  Out of fear, the girl sent two photographs of herself posing naked.  


Law enforcement became involved and accessed the girl’s accounts.  Detectives continued to communicate with the suspect, and he threatened to expose the photos of the girl on the internet if she didn’t send more photos.  Castine made several more threats over the next couple of days, and he was arrested on October 18, 2011 in North Carolina.  


During a forensic investigation, authorities found 350,000 pictures of children and pictures of another girl in Helena.  Castine is off of the streets, and the community is safer after one more child predator has been taken down.  


Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

Doctor Illegally Prescribed Steroids, HGH, and Painkillers

Doctor Illegally Prescribed Steroids, HGH, and Painkillers


On October 19, 2012, the US Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio announced that a Pittsburgh physician was indicted on 185 counts of illegally prescribing anabolic steroids, human growth hormone, and narcotics like oxycodone and oxycontin.  The indictment also included charges for health care fraud.  


Dr. Richard A. Rydze received 185 counts in the indictment.  The co-defendants are William Zipf and James Hatzimbes.  


Rydze owned the Optimal Health Center LLC (OHC) in Pittsburgh, and the facility opened in September of 2007.  He was also involved in a joint medical practice called Diagnostic Medical Associates.  Hatzimbes owned the HSE Salon and Wellness Center in Saw Mill Run, Pittsburgh.  


Hatzimbes and Rydze distributed anabolic steroids between September of 2007 and March of 2011.  The drugs included stanozolol, nandrolone decanoate, testosterone enanthate, testosterone cypionate, oxandrolone, and testosterone, and they were distributed to bodybuilders and athletes in the area.  


Rydze met with William Sadowski in 2007 who owned ANEWrx in Pittsburgh.  The two men made an agreement that Rydze would receive a commission for every prescription of HGH and steroids he filled at the pharmacy.  According to court documents, Rydze received $301,407 in commission from the pharmacy.  


Rydze also submitted claims through Highmark Insurance where he diagnosed over 90 adult patients with pituitary dwarfism.  40 out of 90 defendants were over 5 feet tall, and one patient was even over 6 feet tall.  


The charges connecting Rydze and Zipf involve a deal they made between March 28, 2007 and January, 2012.  Rydze agreed to write prescriptions for Zipf and in the names of his family members so he could sell oxycodone, oxymorphone, oxycontin, and opana around the Pittsburgh area.  


Rydze was forced to give up his medical license, and he will likely spend the rest of his life in prison.  


U.S. Attorney Steven M. Dettelbach stated, “Doctors have a tremendous power in prescribing medication, and the vast majority use that power to dispense medicine to sick people.  This doctor is accused of using his prescription pad like a personal ATM, doling out steroids, painkillers, and other medicine for his own gain.”


Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

Man in New Mexico Faces 74 Years for Crime Spree

Man in New Mexico Faces 74 Years for Crime Spree


On October 18, 2012, the US Attorney’s Office for the District of New Mexico announced that Jerome Yazzie of Tohajiilee, New Mexico, was found guilty for two counts of aggravated burglary, one count of robbery, one count of kidnapping, and two counts for using a firearm during a crime of violence.


According to court documents, Yazzie made his 15-year-old daughter and her 18-year-old boyfriend help him burglarize one of two properties in Tohajiilee on June 3, 2011.  Yazzie used a firearm in the burglary, and he also forced his daughter and her boyfriend to help him kidnap a young man.  


The first robbery occurred at a residence that was occupied by a teenager and young man.  Yazzie was armed with a loaded shotgun and proceeded to kick down the front door.  He then discharged the shotgun so his daughter and her boyfriend could restrain the teenager and young man.  Yazzie robbed the residence, and went to a second residence.  


The occupants were a young couple with a four-month-old baby, and they denied entry to Yazzie earlier in the day.  He took the resident from the first property along with him to encourage the second set of victims to let him in.  


Yazzie pointed a gun at the young man and told him to knock on the door.  The married couple would not open the door, and Yazzie walked the man back to his home.  There, he restrained the man again and returned to the second house.


When Yazzie was gone, the married couple grabbed their baby and fled their home.  Yazzie then forced his way into the house and took cash and electronics including a computer.  


He is required to serve a minimum of 35 years in prison and pay fines up to $510,000.  


Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation
 

Seabeck Man Receives 13 Years for Bank Robberies

Seabeck Man Receives 13 Years for Bank Robberies


On October 12, 2012, the US Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington announced that Michael Wandke was sentenced to 13 years in prison for committing four different bank robberies and numerous espresso stand robberies as well.  


Wandke pleaded guilty to the robberies in June of 2012.  He robbed the Bank of America in Kingston on December 21, 2009, and he robbed the Kitsap Bank located in Allyn on February 1, 2010, February 21, 2010, and July 29, 2010.  His sentencing for these crimes will run concurrent with the state sentence for the espresso stand robberies.  


During the robbery of the Bank of America in Kingston, Wandke threatened the tellers with a fake bomb.  He stole $4,300 during the robbery.


During the first robbery of the Kitsap Bank, he flashed a black handgun in his waistband demanded money.  He fled with $10,000, but the teller slipped in a dye pack to ruin the money.  The next robbery occurred just three weeks later.  


This time, he ordered the teller not to put any dye packs in the bag.  He forced the bank manager to leave the bank with him as he checked the bag for dye packs.  After they were far enough away from the bank, Wandke ordered the bank manager to return the bank and he made off with $62,000.  On the third robbery, Wandke broke down the door of the bank and obtained $16,000 during the robbery.  


Wandke robbed an espresso stand in Bremerton, Washington on September 28, 2010.  A witness caught his license plate number and called law enforcement.  The police soon stopped his truck and proceeded to search his home where they found evidence linking him to the bank robberies.  


The FBI and the Kitsap and Mason County Sheriff’s Office investigated the case.  


Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

Restitution

Restitution

Restitution is a right of victims that allows for the recovery of benefit that the criminal gained from the victim.  This is the opposite of compensation where the criminal reimburses the victim for any losses incurred through their actions.  restitution is common in civil cases, although it may also be ordered in criminal cases is the criminal reaps a financial benefit from the victim due to the commission of the crime.
When is restitution common?
Any time a fiduciary duty between two persons is breached, the victim may receive restitution as the other person usually benefits financially as a result of the breach.  The victim in this white collar crime then has a right to restitution, in addition to possible criminal penalties.
What is an example of a breach of a fiduciary duty?
The relationship between a financial advisor and client will generally constitute a fiduciary duty.  The advisor may not benefit off the client unless specifically allowed to do so through written or other agreements.  If one member of party works against the best interests of the other, then the victimized party can seek restitution in court to recover the gains accrued by the other party.
How does restitution work?
The court will order restitution when appropriate and the criminal will be liable to pay the victim any gains through the criminal activity.  If sufficient funds do not exist, liens may be placed against their property or wages and other benefits may be garnished.  The restitution obligation is considered a debt to the victim and will impact their credit worthiness for the failure to pay restitution, as ordered by the courts.

Right to be Informed

Right to be Informed

One of the more important rights afforded to the victims of a crime is the right to be informed on the status of their case, punishments and remedial actions taken against the criminal.  The will be informed of the proceedings and of any developments on the status of the victim.
All victims of a crime are entitled to a free copy of the police report related to their incident.  In addition, all victims of a crime receive access to the Victim Information and Notification Everyday (VINE) hotline where you may inquire about the status of an offender and the likely release date of that offender.  The victim of a crime will be informed on a number of procedural matters related to the criminal and will also be informed if the criminal is released or escapes from prison.
The authorities have an obligation to inform victims of crime on the parole status and location of the criminal after they have been released from prison.  The authorities will also inform non-victims of a crime if a dangerous criminal or sex offender moves into their area.
There is also a right to be informed for criminals, known as their Miranda rights, which protect the rights of the accused from self-incrimination.  This right to be informed benefits victims as it ensures that all evidence collected will be legitimate and has a better chance of holding up at trial, which ensures a fair and speedy trial.

Miranda Rights

Miranda Rights


The Miranda rights are a series of legal protections afforded to those that are accused of a crime.  These rights are present in the constitution but were clarified in the 1966 case of Miranda v. Arizona. Statements made by the accused before being informed of their rights are generally in admissible in court, except in certain cases.  Some physical evidence, such as blood alcohol testing will be admissible, even if it is taken before the suspect is informed on their Miranda rights.  Individuals in police custody need not be informed of their Miranda rights until they are actually accused of a crime.  Suspects that do not speak English or have limited English ability must be provided with a translated version of their Miranda rights.
What were the circumstances of Miranda v. Arizona?
Ernesto Arturo Miranda signed a confession provided to him by the police that states that he was guilty of rape and kidnapping and was confessing on his own free will.  He was not informed of his right to legal counsel and statements he had made to the police were construed as a confession, which was used at trial to sentence him to jail for 25 – 30 years.  The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court where the majority ruled that police custodial confessions such as the one made by Miranda were coercive in nature and that accused needs to be informed of their rights before interacting with the police.
What are the Miranda rights?
Right against self-incrimination –
When in police custody and charged with a crime, the suspect is obligated to do two things.  The suspect must provide identification and must state his or her name.  The suspect must also comply with all DNA or blood testing in addition to fingerprinting.  You do not want to obstruct the investigation or impede police work.  Anything else, especially statements, must be made with the presence of an attorney.
One will incriminate themselves when they make a seemingly innocuous statement to the police.  For instance, making a statement signaling dislike for the victim but otherwise denying involvement in the crime will be enough admissible evidence to establish motive when the case goes to trial.  The police detective will testify to earing you say that you “did not like the defendant.”  Full or partial statements made in police custody after being issued a Miranda warning can, and will be used against you in a court of law.
The protection against self-incrimination is in the Fifth Amendment and gives individuals the right to refuse questions that may implicate them in illegal activity.  This right is waived when the suspect beings cooperating with police questioning.  Generally, one cannot selectively choose which questions to answer.  Pleading the Fifth cannot be used as an admission of guilt.  Those granted immunity from criminal prosecution is no longer allowed the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.  One cannot plead the Fifth when being questioned about the activities of another and this information would not incriminate them.
Right to an attorney – 
The right to an attorney is found in the Sixth Amendment and guarantees the right to an attorney to all, including the poor and indigent.  For those that cannot afford an attorney, a public defender is appointed to handle the case.  The application of the Sixth amendment rights was spotty until the 1963 case of Gideon v Wainwright where the Supreme Court rules that jurisdictions were obligated to provide legal counsel for all accused of all crime.  The state of Florida, prior to this case, only provided counsel to those facing capital punishment.  The presence of legal counsel is essential to ensuring the suspect receives a fair trial, as per the provisions of the constitution.
Miscellaneous –
Some, but certainly not all states will also ask the defendant if they understand their rights and if they wish to speak with the officers after they understand their Miranda rights.
States bordering Mexico will often add that the accused may contact their consulate prior to police questioning.

What are usually the contents of a Miranda Warning?
Miranda warnings vary by state, but will generally have four essential statements
You have the right to remain silent
Anything you say will be used against you in a court of law
You have the right to an attorney
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you
The miscellaneous provisions described above may be added at the discretion of the jurisdiction.
Why would law enforcement neglect to offer a Miranda Warning?
With full knowledge that the evidence they gather is not admissible in court prior to a warning, law enforcement may still try to interrogate the suspect.  They are allowed to act on statements and evidence gathered from the suspect that has not been informed of his or her rights.
In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled on Missouri v. Seibert, finding that the practice of coaxing confessions out of suspects prior to informing them of their rights, then informing them of their rights and obtaining a second confession was unconstitutional.
What are recent developments in the application of Miranda rights?
Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010), decided in the Supreme Court, has ruled that voluntary statements made by the suspect in police custody after being informed of Miranda rights can be interpreted as a waiver of those rights, making the statements admissible in determining the suspect’s guilt.  This is an important development that many suspects will not be aware of and may lead my in police custody to incriminate themselves through cooperating with the police.  The suspect must explicitly invoke his fifth amendment right to halt the police interrogation.
Maryland v. Shatzer (2010) found that the right to counsel would need to be invoked again if the suspect reentered police custody two weeks after being released.  This case derived from the questioning of Shatzer on child molestation charges that had an attorney for the first interrogation but lacked legal counsel three years later upon reopening the case and made incriminating statements that implicated him in the molestation charges.

Affirmative Defense

Affirmative Defense

What Is an Affirmative Defense?

An affirmative defense is a claim made by a defense that offers a justification for the action or behavior for which the defendant is on trial.  The intention of an affirmative defense is to admit to the plaintiff or prosecution’s claims but limit liability due to the circumstances surrounding your action.

What is the insanity defense?

The insanity defense is an affirmative defense where the defendant claims that they have no criminal liability due to a mental illness.  This mental illness prevents them from behaving like a “reasonable person.”  The assumption of a “reasonable person” is the foundation of modern civil and criminal law and this is the reason why this affirmative defense is often made.  A court appointed psychologist or expert witness is generally necessary to ascertain if the defendant is indeed mentally competent or unable to assume criminal liability for his or her actions.

What is self-defense?

Self-defense is an affirmative defense where the defendant justifies his or her actions, generally a violent action against another person, as necessary to protect themselves from potential harm.  Here the defendant puts the blame for the incident on the other party for acting in such a way that a reasonable person would have an honest and reasonable believe that they are in harm’s way.  The law will allow for self-defense in this case, although the self-defense must be consistent with the amount of danger and potential harm that could have come from that situation.

How is an affirmative defense used in practice?

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that an affirmative defense must be based on "knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances” and must be made in good faith, rather than a frivolous legal strategy.  The burden of proof is on the party that uses the affirmative defense is to prove that the situation outlined in their defense is factual and backed by evidence. 

What are some examples of affirmative defenses in criminal law?

In addition to pleasing insanity or self-defense, one may plead that they were compelled to do the crime under duress.  Duress would implicate another party that threatens harm greater than the harm committed by the defendant.  The defendant must have a reasonable and logical belief that they are in danger and their refusal to cooperate in the criminal act will cause them immediate harm.  If successfully prove, an individual cannot be criminally liable for actions the committed under duress.

Alternatively, the defendant may mount an affirmative defense stating the statute of limitations for the crime has expired and the court has not authority to hear the case.  If the statute of limitations, as defined by law, has indeed been exceeded, then the individual may not be tried for past actions.

What are some examples of affirmative defenses in civil law?

There are a number of affirmative defenses in civil law, each referring to a specific situation.  Fair use is an affirmative defense in copyright law.  Contributory negligence is a popular affirmative defense in personal liability and accident cases, pleading that the plaintiff is at least partially responsible for his or her own injuries.

If you need legal advice and assistance, contact defense lawyers.

 

Double jeopardy

Double jeopardy

What is double jeopardy?
The legal principle of double jeopardy prevents an individual for being tried for the same crime twice.  Therefore, as a result of a fair trial, an individual is acquitted of the charges against them, another case cannot be made with the use of those charges.
Where is the protection against double jeopardy in American law?
The protection against double jeopardy is found in the Fifth Amendment, which in addition to protecting individuals from self-incrimination, also prevents persons from being “twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”  This is to prevent an endless cycle of prosecution against defendants.  
The Supreme Court case of Benton v. Maryland concerned an individual acquitted of larceny but guilty of burglary that was allowed a new trial due to improper jury selection.  In the subsequent trial, the new jury found Benton guilty of both larceny and burglary.  This was in violation of a federal prohibition against double jeopardy.  The Supreme Court ruled against the state of Maryland and affirmed the protection against double jeopardy on a state level in addition to the federal level.

What are exceptions to double jeopardy?
 In the event that the acquittal in the first trial was due to fraud that meant that the defendant was not actually in jeopardy, then a second trial on the same charges may occur.
Double jeopardy only applies to trials brought in the original jurisdiction and as such, one can be acquitted of murder in a state and brought up on related charges, such as the violation of civil rights by the Federal government.  Tribal jurisdiction is also in effect when determining double jeopardy and can try a defendant for violating tribal laws.  
Residents of Washington DC or members of the military cannot be subject to double jeopardy in that there is the sole jurisdiction of the federal government in these matters.  In one case, an individual that rejoined the military was court martialed by the military for a crime committed by a civilian after a second trial acquitted him of the charges.  The individual was acquitted in state court but found himself under federal jurisdiction due to rejoining the military.
In the rare instance that a crime is committed simultaneously in two states, then both states may try the defendant for the crime.  Additionally, the defendant may be tried in civil court if the case does not succeed in criminal court.
How can a civil case be brought against a defendant acquitted in a criminal case?
Double jeopardy prevents retrial on the same charges within the same jurisdiction. Therefore, one who is acquitted of murder can be charged with wrongful death, a civil matter.  The facts from the criminal case can be reestablished in the civil case.  Different jurisdictions can try an individual according to its legal code. Criminal and civil law are different enough to allow for different trials with substantially different charges against the defendant.
Subsequent trials are all subject to relevant statues of limitations, according the jurisdiction where the crime or illegal action was committed.

Speedy trial

Speedy trial

A speedy trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the constitution.  It guarantees the rights of Americans accused of crimes to not be jailed for a significant amount of time prior to their fair trial.  Any unreasonable delay can have the case against the defendant invalidated.

What determines a speedy trial?
The definition of a speedy trial will vary by jurisdiction, with many setting time limits based on the severity of the crime.  If exceeding the threshold for a speedy trial, then the case can be dismissed.  Restrictions on this may include long periods of time allocated for serious offenses, such as murder, which will give the state sufficient time to prepare a case against the accused.
The Supreme Court ruled in the 1972 case Barker v. Wingo that the standard that constitutes a speedy trial must be applied on a case by case basis, with regard to the length and reason for the delay.  The prosecution may especially not delay a trial to build a stronger case against the defendant.  An actual determination of the amount of time that constitutes an unreasonable delay was not made.  A trial may be delayed, for example, to find a witness that is critical to the case.  
Factors such as perceived prejudice against the defendant that led to a delay of trial will also be taken into account.  When the defendant asserts his or her right to a speedy trial is also a factor in the determinations to see if the defendant has been denied the right to a speedy trail.  Delays can be in the favor of the defendant and if the defendant does not assert the right to the speedy trial, then it is assumed that the defendant and his or her defense has benefited in the delay of trial.
The precedent of cases against defendants that have had their right to a speedy trial violated to be thrown out was established in the 1973 case of Strunk v United States.  In this case, the conviction is overturned and the case is dismissed.  Another case on the same charges cannot proceed due to prohibitions on double jeopardy against those arrested for an offense.
Although a case can be dismissed due to the lack of a speedy trial, this tends to be rare and prosecutors will be aware of time constraints, statutory or otherwise that constrain them.
If a speedy trial ends with a hung jury, a mistrial may be declared and a new trial may begin.  This is not subject to the prohibitions on double jeopardy or the right to a speedy trial.
What is an example of a speedy trial statute?
The speedy trial statute in Ohio requires misdemeanor cases to be tried with 30 days and 275 days for felonies.  For multiple charges, the highest charge determines the time limit of the case.  Local lawyers are familiar with local speedy trial statues and can file provisions to extend the statue or can motion to have the case dismissed if there is a compelling violation of speedy trial statutes.