Monthly Archives: June 2010

Flawed Breathalyzer Machines Lead to 400 Drunk Driving Convictions

Defense lawyers have known for decades that the machines used by law enforcement to test the blood alcohol concentration in a person’s breath – the breathalyzer machine or Intox machines used in North Carolina and Raleigh – are not very reliable. Part of the unreliability of these machines stems from the fact that they have…

Share

5k1.1, 18 USC 3553(e) and Rule 35 Federal Sentencing Departures

Federal criminal law has stiff penalties. First, there are the laws – the statutes – that are generally harsher than state statutes in imposing criminal sanctions and penalties. Second, there are the Sentencing Guidelines which add to the harshness of the federal system. There are some limited ways that a federal criminal lawyer can help…

Share

Federal Sentencing Guidelines Overview

Federal criminal law features sentencing guidelines. These guidelines have been drafted by the United States Sentencing Commission. These guidelines are not mandatory, and a federal district judge has the authority to depart upward or downward from the guidelines upon appropriate findings. However, the guidelines are the most important tool courts and lawyers have in determining…

Share

Modifying Bonds in North Carolina

I’ll paraphrase a question I recently was asked: My son has a $500,000 bond trying to get it reduced. He as a court appointed lawyer. I need to know the steps to getting a bond reduction and how long does it take. These are not steps you should take. They are steps his lawyer should…

Share

Berghuis v. Thompkins – New Developments in Miranda

I posted a short video explaining the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Berghuis v. Thompkins. I explain how the ruling makes it important for anyone being questioned by police to firmly, but politely, insist on having an attorney present, and on remaining silent.

Share

New Developments in Miranda law

Since 1966, the Supreme Court has had to reinterpret Miranda law. Miranda law first was developed in a 1966 case – Arizona v. Miranda – in which the Supreme Court ruled that when a suspect is interrogated in custody, the police must read him his rights. And if he invokes his rights, the police must…

Share