Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the defendants were involved in a plot to kill a rival drug dealer in exchange for cash and controlled substances. The government contended that one defendant arranged the killing and paid the others money and cocaine to carry it out, also supplying a firearm to be used in the attack.

Reportedly, the shooting occurred on a public roadway when the defendants pulled alongside the victim’s vehicle and opened fire, killing two occupants and injuring a third. The government asserted that the roadway formed part of a federally designated highway system and that the defendants used a private automobile to carry out the killing.

It is alleged that a federal grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging multiple offenses, including murder-for-hire, conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, and firearms offenses resulting in death. The indictment alleged that the defendants used or caused the use of a facility of interstate commerce to commit murder in exchange for something of value.

It is reported that the defendants proceeded to a lengthy jury trial in federal district court. After the government rested, the defendants moved for judgments of acquittal, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish the interstate commerce element of the murder-for-hire statute and that the drug conspiracy charges were unsupported. The district court denied the motions, and the jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts. The court imposed life sentences and additional terms of imprisonment.

Reportedly, the defendants appealed their convictions, challenging the scope of the murder-for-hire statute, the constitutionality of applying it to intrastate conduct, the jury instructions, and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the drug and firearms convictions.

Evidence in Florida Murder Cases

On appeal, the court reviewed the defendants’ statutory and constitutional arguments de novo while viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict. The court first addressed whether the intrastate use of a private automobile satisfied the murder-for-hire statute’s requirement that a facility of interstate commerce be used.

Relying on recent circuit precedent, the court held that automobiles qualify as instrumentalities and facilities of interstate commerce, even when used entirely within a single state. The court emphasized that Congress amended the statute to cover facilities of interstate commerce, not merely facilities used in interstate travel. As a result, the defendants’ use of a car to carry out the killing satisfied the statute’s jurisdictional element.

The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that the statute exceeded Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause. Applying plain-error review, the court concluded that binding precedent foreclosed any claim that regulating intrastate use of an automobile for murder-for-hire was unconstitutional.

Next, the court addressed the defendants’ challenge to the jury instructions, which argued that the government was required to prove the defendants knowingly used an interstate facility. The court rejected that contention, explaining that prior precedent holds that the statute does not impose a scienter requirement for the commerce element.

Turning to the drug conspiracy charges, the court concluded that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s findings. Testimony established that the defendants received multiple ounces of cocaine as partial payment for the killing, an amount consistent with distribution rather than personal use. The court held that the jury could reasonably infer an agreement to possess and distribute controlled substances.

After reviewing all claims, the court affirmed the convictions and sentences in their entirety.

Speak with a Skilled Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

If you are charged with a violent crime, it is smart to speak to an attorney to better understand your rights and possible defenses. The skilled Tampa criminal defense attorneys at Hanlon Law understand how federal courts interpret firearm enhancements and conspiracy allegations, and if you hire us, we can evaluate the evidence against you and explain your options. Contact our Tampa office online or call 813-228-7095 to schedule a confidential consultation.

The post Florida Court Discusses Evidence in Florida Murder Cases appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Factual and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the defendant was charged with second-degree murder for the shooting death of the victim. The incident occurred after a prior dispute between the victim, the defendant’s girlfriend, and a neighbor. On the day of the shooting, the victim was attempting to contact his father, who had borrowed his truck, when the victim, his girlfriend, and their children drove to locate him. They encountered a vehicle driven by the neighbor, with the defendant as a passenger. The victim approached the defendant’s vehicle, and the defendant, claiming self-defense, shot the victim multiple times.

Allegedly, the defendant believed the victim was armed and acting aggressively, though no weapon was found on the victim. At trial, the defense sought to include a jury instruction on the justifiable use of deadly force, specifically requesting that aggravated assault be listed as a felony justifying such force. The trial court denied this request, instead allowing the inclusion of burglary. The defendant was subsequently convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to fifty years in prison, followed by lifetime probation. The defendant appealed the conviction, arguing that the trial court erred in excluding the aggravated assault instruction.

Self-Defense Jury Instructions in Violent Crime Cases

On appeal, the court’s sole focus was the trial court’s decision to exclude aggravated assault from the self-defense jury instruction. The standard of review for such a decision is abuse of discretion, particularly considering that a criminal defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on any theory of defense supported by evidence, regardless of how slight.

The court noted that Florida law justifies the use of deadly force if it is necessary to prevent imminent death, great bodily harm, or the imminent commission of a forcible felony, such as aggravated assault. Although the evidence suggested the victim was unarmed, the defendant’s girlfriend testified that the victim appeared to be holding a gun, which supported the defendant’s theory of self-defense.

Ultimately, the court concluded that this testimony provided a sufficient basis for including aggravated assault in the jury instruction. The trial court’s refusal to do so was deemed a reversible error because it undermined the defendant’s sole defense. As a result, the court reversed the conviction and sentence, remanding the case for a new trial.

Talk to a Skilled Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer

If you are accused of a violent offense, it is essential to know what defenses you may be able to assert, and it is in your best interest to talk to an attorney. The skilled Tampa violent crime defense lawyers at Hanlon Law can assess the facts of your case and help you pursue the best legal result possible. You can reach Hanlon Law using our online form or by calling 813-228-7095 to arrange a meeting.

The post Florida Court Discusses Self Defense Jury Instructions in Violent Crime Cases appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant faced numerous charges, including second-degree murder with a firearm, shooting into an occupied vehicle, and aggravated assault with a firearm. The charges stemmed from a dispute between the defendant’s family and the victim’s family, culminating in a confrontation at a local park. Earlier animosity arose from the defendant’s sister’s past relationship with the victim. A Snapchat conversation between the defendant and the victim led to an agreement for a fistfight to settle their differences. On the night of the incident, the defendant drove to the park armed with an AR-15 rifle. A heated argument ensued, and the defendant fired multiple shots from his vehicle, resulting in the death of the victim and injuries to others present.

Allegedly, the evidence presented during the trial included testimonies from witnesses, forensic analysis, and the defendant’s own account. The court noted that the defendant claimed self-defense, asserting that he shot at the victim to prevent an imminent threat. Witnesses provided conflicting accounts, with some supporting the defendant’s version and others disputing it. The defendant was convicted, after which he appealed, arguing in part that the trial court erred by allowing a witness to opine on the reasonableness of the defendant’s use of deadly force.

Witness Testimony in Criminal Trials

On appeal, the defendant argued that the witness provided an improper lay-witness opinion, arguing that it was the jury’s prerogative to decide the issue. The salient point was whether the witness’s testimony, suggesting the defendant lacked a legitimate reason to shoot, had an undue influence on the jury’s perception, given the conflicting accounts of eyewitnesses. The defendant emphasized that errors in evidentiary matters are subject to review for an abuse of discretion and cited precedents to underscore that lay witnesses generally cannot offer opinions except under specific circumstances.

In support of his argument, the defendant referred to a Florida case that similarly dealt with a witness providing an opinion on a defendant’s claim of self-defense. The court, in that case, ruled against allowing such testimony, deeming it prejudicial and potentially influential in a confusing situation.

However, the prosecution in the subject case contended that even if the witness’s testimony was inadmissible, they had “opened the door” to it during cross-examination.

They drew parallels to a prior case where the principle of “opening the door” permitted testimony on the defendant’s guilt. Despite the reliability concerns raised, the prosecution maintained that the admission of the witness’s statements, which delved into the defendant’s perception and fears, was not a critical part of the State’s case and did not contribute to the guilty verdict. The court ultimately agreed and affirmed the trial court ruling.

Meet with a Capable Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

People found guilty of violent crimes may spend years in prison, but the prosecution faces a high burden of proof in criminal matters, and if it is unable to meet that burden, the defendant should not be found guilty. If you are accused of murder or another violent offense, it is advisable to meet with an attorney as soon as possible. The capable Tampa violent crime defense lawyers of Hanlon possess the knowledge and experience needed to assist you in seeking the best legal result available.  You can reach Hanlon Law by using the form online or by calling us at 813-228-7095 to set up a conference.

The post Florida Court Discusses Witness Testimony in Criminal Trials appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Factual and Procedural Background of the Case

It is reported that the defendant and accomplices robbed a pawn shop and then fled from the police. The defendant ultimately entered the victim’s home and then drove the victim’s car through the garage door. The police arrested the defendant and then found the two victims murdered within the home.

The defendant was charged with multiple offenses, including two counts of first-degree murder. During the selection of jurors, the state used one of its preemptory strikes to remove a juror who, like the defendant, was black. The defendant’s attorney stated that the state’s reason for striking the juror was not sufficiently race-neutral. The defendant was convicted as charged. He then appealed.

Preemptory Strikes of Jurors in Criminal Matters

On appeal, the defendant raised several arguments, including the assertion that the prosecution was impermissibly motivated by race when it struck the juror. First, the court noted that the defendant’s argument that the state’s reasons for preemptively striking the juror were pretextual was not properly preserved for appeal.

In other words, while the defendant’s attorney objected at trial that the state’s alleged reasons for striking the juror were not sufficiently race-neutral, the objection did not place the court on notice of the argument he ultimately advanced on appeal, which is that the state’s proffered reasons were pretextual. Further, the court found that the state’s reason for striking the juror, namely that she stated she was not God when asked about the death penalty, was, in fact, sufficiently race-neutral.

The court rejected the defendant’s second argument, which was that there was insufficient evidence to support the defendant’s guilty verdict of attempted first-degree murder with a vehicle as well. Finally, the court found that the defendant’s remaining arguments lacked merit. Thus, it affirmed his convictions.

Confer with an Assertive Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

Theft crimes are zealously prosecuted in Florida, and people found guilty of theft offenses often face lengthy sentences. If you are charged with identity theft or any other theft offense, it is wise to confer with an attorney as soon as possible. The assertive Tampa lawyers of Hanlon Law are well versed in what it takes to obtain successful results in criminal matters, and if you hire us, we will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can reach Hanlon Law via the form online or at 813-228-7095 to set up a meeting.

The post Florida Court Discusses Preemptory Strikes of Jurors in Criminal Matters appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

The Trial and Sentencing

It is reported that the defendant and the victim, his ex-girlfriend, were estranged, and the defendant was subject to a restraining order that prohibited him from contacting the victim. He suspected that she was dating another man, and he ransacked her home while she was out. She called the police but declined to press charges. The following day, he attended a hearing on another criminal matter, then called the victim and spoke to her for several minutes.

Allegedly, the defendant then proceeded to buy ammunition, travel to the victim’s home and shot the victim and one of her friends who was in the home with her. He attempted to shoot her boyfriend and another friend as well. He was charged with and convicted of multiple first-degree murder crimes and sentenced to death for each murder. He appealed, arguing in part that the trial court erred in instructing the jury and finding the murder was committed in a calculated, cold, and premediated manner which constituted an aggravating factor and lead to his death sentences.

Aggravating Factors Under Florida Law

Under Florida law, in order to demonstrate the calculated, cold, and premeditated aggravating factor, a homicide must have been the result of a calm and cool reflection and not an act brought about by a panic, fit of rage, or emotional reaction. The defendant must also have a thought out plan or design to commit the killing before the fatal event, and he or she must show enhanced premeditation. Finally, no moral or legal justification for the crime can exist.

In matters in which a defendant appeals a finding that a murder was calculated, cold, and premeditated, the appellate court will merely assess whether the trial court correctly applied the law and, if so, whether the evidence of record is sufficient to support the finding. Here, the court found that, based on the circumstances as a whole, the evidence substantially supported the finding that the murders were committed in a calculated, cold, and premeditated manner. Thus, the defendant’s sentence was affirmed.

Meet with a Knowledgeable Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

Many violent crimes carry significant penalties, and it is vital for anyone charged with first-degree murder or another homicide to speak to an attorney as soon as possible. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a knowledgeable Tampa attorney, and if you are accused of committing a criminal offense, he can advise you of your rights and aid you in seeking the best outcome available under the facts of your case. You can contact Mr. Hanlon via the form online or by calling 813-228-7095 to schedule a conference.

The post Florida Court Discusses Aggravating Factors in Homicide Cases appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

When the police conduct a criminal investigation, they will typically obtain a warrant to uncover information that is private or otherwise not readily accessible. If the police gather certain evidence without a warrant, however, it may violate the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizures, and the evidence may be deemed inadmissible. Not all information is protected against warrantless searches, though, as demonstrated in a recent Florida opinion issued in a homicide case, in which the court ruled that information from a third-party GPS system was not private. If you are charged with murder or a related offense, it is essential to retain an assertive Tampa criminal defense attorney who will fight to protect your rights.

The Alleged Crime and Investigation

Allegedly, the victim was found murdered in a park. He had been staying at a hotel prior to his death. The defendant resided at the hotel also, along with his girlfriend. The hotel had cameras, and when the police reviewed the surveillance footage, they observed the victim leaving the hotel with the defendant and the defendant returning alone a few hours later. The police learned that the defendant often used his girlfriend’s car, which was equipped with a GPS tracker.

Apparently, while the defendant generally had permission to use the car, the girlfriend did not know he took it on the night of the murder and reported it stolen. As such, she contacted her financing company, which had installed a GPS tracker, to track the car’s location. The police obtained GPS information from the company without a warrant. The information revealed that the defendant drove to the park where the victim was found on the night of the murder.

It is reported that the defendant was ultimately charged with first-degree murder. Prior to trial, he moved to suppress the GPS tracking information, arguing that as it was obtained without a warrant, it violated his protections against unreasonable search and seizure. The court denied the motion, and the defendant was convicted, after which he appealed.

Fourth Amendment Protections Against Unreasonable Searches

In evaluating a motion to suppress evidence on the grounds that it violates the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, a court will first assess whether a search was conducted and, if so, whether it was reasonable. In the subject case, the appellate court found that a search had not been conducted because the defendant’s right to privacy had not been violated.

The court went on to state that the defendant did not own the car in question, and the information provided by the GPS tracker was knowingly exposed to the public. Thus, the court found that the defendant did not have a reasonable subjective expectation of privacy with regard to the information. As the defendant could not show that the police violated his right to privacy, he could not prove a search occurred. Thus, the trial court ruling was affirmed.

Meet with a Seasoned Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

Criminal defendants are protected against unlawful searches by the United States Constitution, and if their rights are violated, it may lead to unjust results. If you are charged with a homicide crime, it is in your best interest to meet with an attorney as soon as possible to discuss your case. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a seasoned Tampa attorney who is adept at helping criminal defendants pursue the best outcome available under the circumstances. Mr. Hanlon can be contacted through the online form or by calling 813-228-7095 to schedule a conference.

The post Florida Court Discusses Fourth Amendment Protections appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

The most severe punishment a criminal defendant may face in Florida is the death penalty. Recent changes in Florida law, though, make it more difficult for a criminal defendant to be sentenced to death. In a recent Florida case in which the defendant was charged with murder, the court discussed the status of the current and past requirements for sentencing a defendant to the death penalty. If you are charged with murder or another violent offense, it is in your best interest to engage an aggressive Tampa violent crime defense attorney to develop a strategy for fighting to protect your rights.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant broke into a home in 1984, assaulted a teenage girl that was babysitting in the home, and stabbed her to death. Five days later, he murdered another victim in a substantially similar matter. He was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for each crime. Due to recent changes in the law, the defendant filed a motion to vacate his sentences on the grounds they were unlawful. The trial court denied the motion. The defendant then filed an appeal. Upon review, the appellate court affirmed the trial court ruling.

Death Penalty Sentences Under Florida Law

With regard to the sentence for the second crime, the court found that it was lawful under the sentencing scheme in effect at the time, and case law held that the intervening change in the law was not to be applied retroactively. As such, that sentence was affirmed. Regarding the second sentence, which due to appeals, was imposed much later, the court noted that the Supreme Court of Florida found the prior sentencing scheme to be unconstitutional because it allowed the judge issuing a sentence to find that an aggravating circumstance existed, which is necessary for the imposition of a death sentence, without a jury’s determination of fact.

The court went on to explain that pursuant to the law, a jury must find the aggravating circumstance that renders the defendant eligible for the death penalty. The court stated, however, that in a capital sentencing proceeding, a jury is not required to weigh the mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Further, a jury is not obligated to make the ultimate decision regarding what sentence, within the applicable range, should be imposed on the defendant.

Finally, the court explained that the requirement that a judge, rather than a jury, find the existence of aggravated circumstances is required by the Sixth Amendment. As such, the lower court ruling was affirmed.

Confer with a Zealous Tampa Attorney

Murder and other serious crimes carry significant penalties. If you are a resident of Tampa and are currently accused of murder or another grave offense, it is prudent to confer with an attorney to evaluate your potential defenses. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a zealous Tampa violent crime defense attorney with the skills and resources needed to help you pursue a favorable result and he will advocate aggressively in your favor. You can contact Mr. Hanlon through the form online or at 813-228-7095 to set up a conference.

The post Florida Court Explains Requirements for Imposing the Death Penalty appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Recently, in a case appealed from the Southern District of Florida, a federal appellate court ruled that attempted murder is a violent felony and therefore grounds for increased penalties under the ACCA. If you are a resident of Tampa who has prior convictions and are currently facing criminal charges, you should meet with a knowledgeable Tampa criminal defense attorney to discuss your available options and defenses.

Defendant’s Prior and Current Convictions

Reportedly, the defendant was convicted in Florida for first-degree attempted murder. He was subsequently charged with being a felon in possession of ammunition. He was tried and convicted of the charges. The defendant’s presentence investigation report showed he was subject to an enhanced sentence under the ACCA for attempted first-degree murder, armed robbery, and aggravated battery. He was sentenced to 204 months in prison. Following the Johnson ruling, he filed a motion to reduce his enhanced sentence, arguing his prior convictions could no longer be considered violent felonies. His motion was dismissed. The defendant then appealed on the issue of whether his conviction for attempted first-degree murder constituted a violent felony. On appeal, the court affirmed his enhanced sentence.

The Armed Career Criminal Act

The court explained that the ACCA allows for an enhanced sentence for firearm charges, where a defendant has three prior violent felony convictions or a serious drug offense. A violent felony is defined as a crime that has as an element the use or threatened use of physical force, or is burglary, arson, or extortion, or involves the use of explosives or presents a serious risk of physical injury. The court noted that the “residual clause” of the ACCA was deemed unconstitutionally vague by the Johnson ruling and therefore, a defendant can only be considered an armed career criminal if he or she has prior convictions for an offense named under the ACCA, a prior drug offense, or an offense that meets the elements set forth in the ACCA.

As first-degree murder is not a named offense under the ACCA, the court analyzed whether it met the elements set forth by the ACCA for a violent crime. Upon review, the court found that first-degree murder was a violent crime because it required the use of physical force. The court was not persuaded by the defendant’s argument that murder could be attempted without the use of force, finding no case law supported his argument. Therefore, the court affirmed his sentence.

Consult an Experienced Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

If you are a Tampa resident with previous criminal convictions and are currently facing criminal charges, you should consult an experienced criminal defense attorney to discuss your available defenses. Attorney William Hanlon of Hanlon Law will work diligently to help you seek a favorable outcome under the circumstances. You can reach our offices at 813-228-7095 or via the online form to schedule a meeting.

More Blog Posts:

Florida Court Reverses Sentence Based on Improper Scoring of Prior Crimes December 26, 2018, Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog

Court in Florida Hears Appeal About Whether Defendant Should Have Been Allowed to Represent Himself November 6, 2018, Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog

Florida Defendants Ask for Trial After New Evidence Discovered October 8, 2018, Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog

The post Federal Court Rules Florida Attempted Murder is a Violent Crime for Purposes of Imposing an Enhanced Sentence appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

General Competency

Whether a defendant is represented by counsel or representing themselves, they need to be competent in order to stand trial. This is different than an insanity defense. Competency refers to the defendant’s mental state at trial. They need to be competent enough to understand the nature of the proceedings against them and meaningfully assist in their own defense.

In a case heard by the Florida Third District Court of Appeal, the defendant represented himself at trial after dismissing two different attorneys. Before the trial began, the defendant was determined to be incompetent to stand trial. However, after a period of hospitalization without medication, he was deemed competent enough to stand trial. At several points throughout the trial the court did a Faretta inquiry and each time the defendant was found competent to stand trial and represent himself.

After representing himself, the defendant was found guilty of  second-degree murder and attempted second degree murder. Though standby counsel was available during the trial, the defendant chose not to take advantage of the assistance. Now, the defendant appeals his convictions on the grounds that the court did not make sufficient Faretta inquiries.

Court of Appeal Holding

The appeals court disagreed with the defendant and upheld his convictions. They explained that the competence inquiry in a Faretta hearing is not whether the defendant is competent to defend themselves, but whether they are competent to waive the right to defend themselves. As part of the Faretta inquiry, the court also has a responsibility to explain to the defendant the importance of being represented by counsel and the advantages that having a skilled attorney can bring.

The appeals court held that the record in this case shows that the court did a sufficient Faretta inquiry at many different points throughout the trial. The court also held that it was not fundamental error to have made certain comments about the defendant’s choice to defend himself. Specifically, the judge reprimanded the defendant after he interrupted and tried to speak out of turn. The judge noted that the defendant would have known when his time to ask questions was if he was represented by an attorney. Though the defendant argued that these comments undermined his ability to get a fair trial, the court disagreed and once again upheld his sentence.

Contact an Experienced Tampa Violent Crimes Defense Attorney Today!

As this case illustrates, it is imperative that defendants are represented by qualified counsel. Many of the issues raised by the defendant would have had a better chance had they been raised at trial initially. The violent crimes defense attorneys at Hanlon Law Firm zealously and knowledgeably defend clients charged with a crime. Contact us online or call our offices at (727) 897-5413 to speak with our skilled attorneys about your case.

See Related Posts:

Court Finds No Brady Violation in Florida Murder Case

“Dying Declaration” Allowed as Evidence in Florida Murder Case

The post Court in Florida Hears Appeal About Whether Defendant Should Have Been Allowed to Represent Himself appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Brady Violations

There are certain requirements that need to be met in order for a court to find that a Brady violation has occurred. The burden is on the defendant to show that a Brady violation has taken place. The first thing the defense needs to prove is that the evidence either impeached the testimony of a prosecution witness or was exculpatory. They also need to prove that the State either willfully or inadvertently withheld that evidence from the defense. Finally, the defendant needs to show that the evidence was material and that their lack of access to the evidence hurt their case.

The post Court Finds No Brady Violation in Florida Murder Case appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.