• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by legalfiction677

  1. You might also be very surprised to know,that double jeopardy does not apply even for someone tried,three(3) times,where both guilty and not guilty verdicts were rendered.Such was the case of Timothy Hennis,who was convicted in a military tribunal in 2006 of killing Kathryn Eastburn,and her two daughters,but was first tried twice in state court,with the first trial being found guilty,and the second acquitted. He was the first such person in US history to be tried in this manner,but this case had some unusual circumstances involved in it as well,and it is rare for the feds to step in,after a state conviction has been obtained,but sometimes they will when they feel an injustice has been done. Here's the link where you can read this story.
  2. WOW,! if that's true,I think such a law would be extremely difficult to enforce.except for certain groups such as Teachers,Doctors,etc.
  3. OMG: The crime of opening old threads has just been committed on here,Class-A Felony,and totally "unforgivable, Seventeen(17) students were just gunned down in florida,because a mentally disturbed young man,was able to buy a AR-15 rifle,and go on a shooting rampage,leaving the victims families devasted,but that is sooo small in comparison to opening an old thread. just thought I'd voice my thoughts,on what I think about the utter triviality,and yes,on an old forum.
  4. This is definitely a scam.I've heard about 'scammers" like this calling people during tax season telling them they had a warrant for their arrest,if they didn't make a payment for unpaid taxes,which is not how the IRS operates.Some clues to spotting this illegal activity is the so called agency asking you to give or confirm personal information such as your bank account number,SSN,and credit card(s) numbers.Also,they call from a private number,or a spoof one,that you cannot identify.Be very wary of scams like this,and never give out any personal information.I would also call,and file a police report on the incident.
  5. Hello there Sir: It would help us on here,if you wouldn't mind being a little more clearer,and provide some detail as to what this "new law" is about.
  6. How much more pleasant this forum could be,if only people on here would learn some "tact,"and due respect to others who post here,instead of interjecting their own personal feelings,and opinions,"personally" against the posters. Oh me,just had to chime in with my own two cents worth,so as not to be left out,you know.
  7. Depending on the jurisdiction,which you failed to mention,there may/may not be a State law which requires you to report suspected criminal activity of this sort,but that aside,as a the morally right thing to do,It would personally bother me,to know such a defenseless individual was being so abused,and reporting it,is really a "no brainer."
  8. Legalwriterone: Beyond the 60 day suspension,he has almost a year of drivers license restriction,that seems to be what he wanting to appeal. If Michigan Court rules do not allow for an appeal based on a plea of guilty or nolo contendere,and the op entered a plea agreement,than everything else is irrelevant as to any appeal.
  9. If you will note my post above,I provided you the answer to those questions.
  10. Hi There: I cannot speak to Michigan laws,but generally speaking,if the sentence part of your conviction could have been appealed,there would have had to been a basic in law for an appeal,such as you were incorrectly sentenced under the code section under which you were convicted.Second,appeals,have time limits,usually 30/60 days to file an appeal,and this being February,you may have exceeded the time limit,depending on what Michigan allows. I understand your business requires you to do a lot of driving,and the driving restrictions imposed by the court may have an effect on your job,and income,but such inconveniences,and effects on your job,would not be grounds for an appeal,and as you say,your previous conviction was,no doubt factored in during sentencing.
  11. Hi There: first off,you need to understand the basic purpose of what discovery is for.In the context of a criminal trial,it is for both the prosecution,and the defense attorney to learn(discover) what evidence each side has,and will ultimately present at trial to prove it case. The next thing is,because,you may end up taking a plea deal,instead of going to trial,discovery of the state's case-in-chief,would become irrelevant,since your guilty plea agreement,takes the burden of proof to prove your guilt off the prosecutor. Well,while that may have been the case in Maine,laws,and procedures vary by jurisdiction,and some District Attorneys Offices,do have an "open book" policy,on providing what the state has in it's files,but you are presently in N.H.,and are represented by counsel,so they probably have a policy there to only show your Attorney,all the evidence against you,but here again,if you end up taking a plea,not having copies of the state's file,is irrelevant,and does not do you any harm.
  12. When it comes to Parole,what you need to understand,is that it's not a "Right" to begin with,so the Parole board,at their discretion doesn't ever have to offer it,and it in cases where they do offer it,they can rescind it(take it away)The only limits,that exist,if any, on their discretion,are those that are specified by state law.
  13. Hello there: You did not mention the outcome of the incident,weather a warrant was ever obtained,or weather anything was ever discovered.In any case though,what your speaking of is an investigatory detention,which is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment,and while there's no exact time limit(it varies from case to case)the detention can be no longer than it takes to dispel the Officer's suspicion of criminal activity. I can tell you this much.In cases of drug suspicion,what happens,more often than not,is the Officer,radio's to have a Canine unit brought in to sniff out drugs,and this is done,because,it doesn't fall under a search for Fourth Amendment purposes,and so bypasses the need to seek for a warrant.
  14. It's not clear from your post,what the Feb,26th court day is in reference too,but here's the thing,your boyfriend was given probation on his original charges,and while under probation,violated the conditions of it,including getting a new charge.So,at this point,whether he stays out of jail,has a lot to do with what his probation officer wants to do.They can either,(1) recommend to the Judge,that he be reinstated,perhaps with stricter supervision/conditions,or (2) recommend his remaining time be revoked,in which case,he will remain in jail for the remainder of time he has left on probation. As far as getting an Attorney,you could,but,if you or he cannot afford to hire one,the court will appoint him a public defender to represent him. Btw...Has your boyfriend had a revocation hearing,or is,that what the feb,26th court date is for?
  15. Well,it does seem that in the amended version of the code,they changed the law to at least allow,for a defendant to be charged with a Misdemeanor for just making a verbal threat,instead of a felony,unless the threat is one to cause death,but talk about a law that is so "lopsided" in nature,this one really does fit the bill,and then there's the stigma it carries,,that is one of being labeled as a "terrorist,"another thing that concerns me.
  16. Hello Everyone,and Happy New Year: I've created this thread,to ask you guys for your opinion on Georgia's,Terroristic Threats and Acts Statute. so,it's not in any context of any specific legal situation,although,I do know of someone who was convicted several years back,and got in a difficult situation of not being able to find housing,as a number of Landlords denied their application after doing a background check on them. Anyway,I've provided a link below on the statute,and this is my position.I think the law is a very good one,and the conduct describing the Offense,seems to be very clear,but the biggest disagreement I have with the law is,you have conduct,namely something as small as making a verbal threat to someone,say in a heated argument with a business partner,a friend,or even just a causal acquaintance,along with much more serious conduct such as "releasing a hazardous substance," "burning or damaging property,with the purpose of terrorizing another,or of causing the evacuation of a building,or place of assembly.The Statute goes on to mention "cross burning" as well,with the purpose of terrorizing another or another's household. I can't agree that the less serious conduct of a verbal threat,along with the far more serious conduct of these "terrorizing acts" are all bunched together in one statute,and that all are a felony.I strongly believe that a verbal threat,at least one on a first offense should in no way be classified as a felony,and should not even be included with such grave acts of terror as what this law describes. Also,I see it as something to cause great confusion to the uneducated layman,such as an Employer,or a Landlord who may be running a background check on a potential employee or tenant.I mean,someone like this is bound to think the convicted person in question committed a violent crime,and yet it's not classified as a violent one,but just the name "terroristic,"post 9/11,is enough to turn anybody off. Now just to be clear here,"verbal threats" is serious business,and it can and does incite fear in others,so,I'm not minimizing the importance of having laws on the books against such conduct.The bottom line here,while I think,this law is a very good,and serves a legitimate purpose in Criminal Law,I seriously believe the "verbal threat" part of it should be took out,and put in a separate code such as "communicating a threat,and that should only be a Misdemeanor. Now,this is my thoughts on this law,What are your?
  17. Ok then.Well I don't think it was a bad idea to file a report.I mean,who knows,maybe .he really did drug,and then rape you,so that is something for Police to be able to look back on,in case,another woman files a report involving this same man. As far,as you recanting,on what you told Police at the time this happened,there wasn't any harm done,since the guy was never arrested,and there was no trial.So,I really think it's pointless to go back,and correct something,you now don't believe to be true,and really,if you were drugged on the night in question,I would say,there is enough doubt to question,whether or not,you were drugged,and raped by this guy. A Police report,is just that,a report to the police.It's not anything on this guy's record,so don't worry about that.
  18. Hello there Mam. You have really left out very important details,such as the follow up investigation by Police,and weather the case ever made it to trial,and if so,what the outcome was.Please provide these details,so that we can better answer your concerns.
  19. Hey,Tax_Counsel,You do realize that the other things mentioned in the statute,besides,just making verbal threats of violence,are actually,"Acts,"that have been committed by someone charged with the Offense,?hence the name,"Terroristic Threats,and Acts."
  20. You are so right Tax_Counsel,and Thank you.I don't need to write my state legislator because apparently,the issues I brought up have apparently been modified in the 2016 code,which is no where in the 2010 code on this law. Believe this or not though,Terroristic Threats in Georgia,up til now has always been strictly a felony,including just making verbal threats to cause death or just to inflict any bodily harm.The verbal part of the statute is right at the beginning at (b)(1) (A) A person commits the offense of a terroristic threat when he or she threatens to: (A)Commit any crime of violence. Now while it's true that most domestic type threats where people know each other doesn't include the more serious acts of terror described in the statute,I know of people who have been charged under this law for just making a verbal threat to cause bodily harm,that resulted in them having a felony conviction,and that was my total disagreement with this law,but apparently someone or some group got involved to effect a change in the law as shown by the modification of the 2016 code. It is still my opinion however,that verbal threats,regardless of the nature of them has no place in a statute that involves far more serious conduct as described in this statute.It creates confusion to the uneducated layman that run background checks that can have serious effects on peoples lives who were convicted on the statute just for making threats.After 9/11,a conviction of something like terroristic threats is bound to carry a certain stigma to it,and that stigma may be well deserved for someone who committed the more serious acts of terror,but not for someone just making verbal threats.
  21. I would say,you need a Laywer,but more like,a Miracle Worker.Plea bargains are rarely appealed,and those that are are almost never successful. First off,by accepting a plea agreement,you took all responsibility off the State to prove you committed any crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Second thing is,by accepting the plea agreement,you "plead guilty,"meaning,you admitted guilt to the charged crime,"knowingly,"and "voluntarily." The Courts are extremely good at making sure,your plea agreement is beyond the reach of any successful appeal,but asking you several questions relating to the charged crime,and the conditions of your plea agreement.Now all this is done "on the record" in open court,and once you answer all these questions to the satisfaction of the judge,and he/she accepts your plea,it's a done deal.
  22. There will be plenty of time before your son's case will end in either a trial or plea bargain with the DA,so don't worry about that part.He will be able to consult with his Attorney in time enough to present the case before the Judge. As far as law enforcement "legally" having a right to go through your son's phone again,while he was/is still in jail.I'm not sure why,there would be a need for that,since it's obvious he could not have had access to the phone while in jail,and after this second warrant was issued,it should have come to the police's attention,that it was someone else,the officer responded to in your son's messenger account.Did they in fact,search the phone anyway,or do you know?
  23. And who says,"Crime don't pay," just ask the government.
  24. I totally agree.I don't really know a lot on this particular issue,but it has been my understanding,that when the state results to proceed with a civil forfeiture against someone,it is usually because,that person has engaged in criminal activity numerous times,using there personal property,such as committing a DUI in their car several times,at least that's one aspect of it. Also,it's pretty common with drug dealers,when their caught to seize all monies,and property acquired or otherwise used in the course of their drug operations,which personally,I don't have a problem with at all.I think the states probably make more money on medium to large scale drug dealing operations,than by any other source.The government,state and federal seizes all these cars and house,and then has these big auctions,selling them off. Now given the facts,the op shared with us,I don't see why they would want to seize his car based on a single incident,unless there's more to the story.