Alabama Criminal Lawyer Blog

Summer brings with it many opportunities for friends and family to get together for cookouts, concerts, and other festivities. Like it or not, many of these events include alcohol. Because drinking often causes people to make bad choices, it is important that the crucial choices, such as a designated driver, be made before the drinking begins.
I recently read this article that speaks about a group of friends who made some bad decisions which lead to the deaths of two of the friends. I was reminded of a similar experience when my best friend's younger brother was driving with some friends in his truck and was involved in a very serious accident. Fortunately, there were no permanent injuries to any of those involved, but the accident served as a wake-up call to my friend's brother.
In these situations, everyone involved suffers. The families of the deceased feel that their relative was blameless in the tragedy, but the reality is that bad choices were made by passengers and driver. The cost is unbelievably high for everyone. The best way to avoid this tragedy is to make better decisions, such as not getting behind the wheel if you have had too much to drink.

Continue reading "DUI Victims Are Not Always Strangers" »

One situation that has been coming up with increasing frequency in my DUI practice has been when diabetic individuals are charged with DUI. It has been extremely surprising to me that officers involved in these cases have not been trained to understand what diabetes is and how it can mimic intoxication in someone especially when that person is experiencing a low blood sugar episode.

When a diabetic is experiencing low blood sugar, their motor functions can be impaired, causing them to drive erratically. This can easily be the basis for a traffic stop for suspicion of dui. However, this may be just the beginning of the diabetic's problems. Some other symptoms of low blood sugar may include slurred speech, impaired balance, disorientation, and poor motor control. Coincidentally, these are all things that officers look for to identify someone who is too intoxicated to operate a vehicle.

To make matters even worse, there are studies that show that a diabetic can receive a false positive on a breath test. The International Journal of Obesity has written on the subject here.

What should someone do if they are a diabetic and get stopped for DUI? First, you should inform the officer that you are diabetic and possibly suffering from low blood sugar. The most immediate problem is that you could be in a situation where you need medical treatment. Secondly, if you have not had anything alcoholic to drink, you should insist on a blood test rather than the breath test that is normally administered. If you have been drinking in addition to being diabetic, you may want to consider whether or not to submit to any type of test. Keep in mind that the police may get a warrant and take a blood sample without your consent.

Continue reading "Alabama Diabetic DUI Charges" »

This story is a perfect example of why I choose to practice in the areas of Criminal Law and Family Law in Alabama. Sometimes the lines between these practice areas are so blurry that it is difficult to see where one ends and the other begins.

From the information given, there are some difficulties that Mr. Dutcher would face if making this claim and using the defense of entrapment in Alabama. I think that it would be necessary for him to prevail on the criminal charge in order to get back to even footing in the domestic case, therefore, I will focus on the DUI case in this blog entry.

Entrapment is codified in Alabama under Section 13A-3-31 of the Code of Alabama. Basically, the code section states that Alabama adopts the caselaw view of entrapment. As a defense, entrapment is generally recognized to mean that an officer of the law, or someone acting as a law officer persuaded the defendant to commit a crime that the defendant would not otherwise have committed.

In this case, Mr. Dutcher would have to prove that these women were 1) officers of the law or somehow acting on behalf of officers, and 2) that they coerced him into driving under the influence of alcohol when he otherwise would not have done so. Entrapment is a difficult defense to use but very effective if it can be proven. One interesting note is that when the defendant puts forth an entrapment defense, they create a burden to prove the elements where normally a defendant has no burden of proof in a criminal case whatsoever.

Continue reading "DUI Entrapment Claim by Man During Custody Battle" »

Gabe Watson, an Alabama man who was accused of killing his wife in Australia in 2003, faces possible murder charges in Alabama for the crime. Watson plead guilty to manslaughter charges in Australia and subsequently served 18 months in prison in that country. He is accused of killing his wife while scuba diving in Australia on the couple's honeymoon.

Many people, apparently including Alabama Attorney General Troy King, have shown their unhappiness with the Australian sentence in this case publicly, and have searched for ways to punish Mr. Watson more severely for his alleged crime. Now it appears that the State of Alabama will be charging Mr. Watson again for apparently the same offense that he has already served a sentence for in Australia.

The obvious question that this turn of events brings to mind is whether this Alabama charge can stand up to Constitutional challenges. At first glance, it appears to fly in the face of the Double Jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution. This clause is found in the fifth Amendment to the Constitution and states "[no person shall] be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."

There are several notable circumstances where this legal principle is seemingly not followed. One of the most common of which is the exception referred to as the "separate sovereigns" exception. A common example of this occurs when a person violates both state and federal law by the same actions and is therefore charged both by the state and the federal government. I think that in the current situation with Mr. Watson, the "separate sovereigns" exception could easily be applied.

Once the obvious hurdle of double jeopardy is avoided, the Alabama charges have another, much more difficult hurdle to pass. The state of Alabama generally would have no jurisdiction to prosecute behavior that occurred outside of the state of Alabama. It appears that the state of Alabama will attempt to navigate this hurdle by a claim that the crime was planned while Mr. Watson was in Alabama prior to the trip to Australia. It will be very interesting to see what kind of evidence the state will put on to prove this case. The state will be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of the offense. This means that they will have to convince a jury that there was a plan to kill his wife, that the plan was made at least partially in Alabama, and then that Mr. Watson killed his wife as charged. This all seems like a tough case for the state to make.

Continue reading "Alabama Murder Charges for Man Accused of Killing Wife in Australia" »

Once a person is branded a sex offender in Alabama, it is often a life-long battle for them to be able to live in peace. Between all of the local, state, and federal rules for where that sex offender can live and work, it takes a legal scholar and a land surveyor to plot on a map the areas that person may go.

Recently, I had a case where a client had been convicted of a sex crime as a juvenile, he served his time in a juvenile facility, and then as an adult several years later was arrested for failure to register as a sex offender. He was dumbfounded because he thought that juvenile records were supposed to be confidential. This client had no idea that he was required to register as an adult sex offender. He was very fortunate not to lose his job and home because of this error of omission.

Another client of mine was a combat veteran who plead guilty to a sex offense before he retained my services. He served a prison sentence and was released only to be re-arrested the same day. The reason for his new arrest: he was homeless. He was informed that he had to register an address that was in an acceptable location (a certain distance from schools and daycares, etc) and that if he was unable to do so, he would not be released.

These are just a couple of examples of the difficulty that a sex offender faces once he or she is released from prison. These problems are compounded by the fact that it is difficult or impossible to find a job as a convicted felon, much less a convicted sex offender. Too often, it is a life sentence for someone in Alabama to be convicted of a sex related offense.

Continue reading "Alabama Sex Offender Laws Severely Restrict Life After Prison" »

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees, among other things, that no one "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." This is the basis for the familiar "Miranda Warning" that reminds a suspect that they have a right to remain silent. However, in my practice I have found that an alarming number of people being investigated as a suspect in a crime choose to talk to the police. Therefore, I give every one of my clients this simple piece of advice: Never talk to the police.

This advice is obviously very difficult to follow, but I believe it is crucial to getting a fair trial for the following reasons.

First, making a statement to the police can never help you. As discussed in Part 1 of this blog entry, the typical Miranda Warning explains that "anything you say can be used against you in a court of law." What a lot of suspects assume is that if they say something helpful, it will be introduced at trial in their favor. The reality is that those statements would be inadmissible hearsay and the prosecutor would object if the defense attorney attempted to have those statements admitted. Statements against the defendant's interests fall into an exception to the hearsay rules and would be allowed by the judge. Therefore, it doesn't make sense for an innocent person to speak to the police during an investigation, because the innocent person could not benefit from any statements made.

Secondly, there are too many ways that an innocuous statement can be used to convict the defendant. When being subjected to interrogation by the police for an extended amount of time, suspects tend to get to a point where they are just trying to get out of there. At that point, many suspects will tend to exaggerate otherwise truthful statements of innocence. What may start out as "I wasn't there when the crime occurred," becomes "I've never been there in my life." While the suspect may not have been at the scene of the crime when the crime was committed, the police may have a way to prove that the suspect was there on some other day. At that point, the suspect's credibility is gone and they appear to be guilty even though they may not be.

Next, a statement made to the police during questioning may not be presented to the jury at trial in the same manner as it was originally given. Often, an officer on the stand at trial will offer personal commentary about the suspect's statement. If the questioning was not videotaped (most interrogations are not videotaped) then the officer's commentary may be presented to the jury without contradiction. For example, the officer may tell the jury that he believed the suspect was nervous or that he seemed to be hiding something. Often, the officer will testify that the suspect was evasive or fidgety or that he was sarcastic with certain answers. This type of officer commentary can make an exculpatory statement seem like an admission of guilty.

Finally, a suspect in a police investigation should remain silent and refuse to talk to the police because even if they are guilty, there is no reason to admit guilt without receiving any benefit in return. A large number of criminal defendants eventually plead guilty to some offense. These defendants usually change their plea to guilty in return for a reduction of the charges or some consideration in terms of sentencing. A suspect who confesses to the police at the beginning of the process has given away their best bargaining chip and may get a more substantial sentence as a result.

Continue reading "Alabama Police Questioning: Don't Talk to Police (Part 2)" »

One of the most frequently asked questions that I get from my clients is something like this: "the officer who arrested me never read me my rights. Does that mean they have to drop the charges?" The short answer is always "No." Below is a more detailed explanation as to why that is true.

"Miranda Rights" are something of an enigma. The term comes from the Supreme Court Case Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The rights afforded to the accused come from the United States Constitution. There has long been a serious misunderstanding of what the police are required to do to comply with the Court's ruling in this and subsequent cases, much of this misunderstanding has been caused by the portrayal of "Miranda Rights" in movies and on television.

The standard Miranda Warning goes something like this: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?"

These rights must be explained to a suspect prior to custodial interrogation or any statements made by that suspect will not be admissible in court. This means that if the police are arresting a suspect and they don't need to ask that suspect any questions, there is no need to read the Miranda Warning. Further, if the police are asking a suspect questions, but that suspect is not in custody, there is no need to read the Miranda Warning. Finally, it means that even if the suspect is in custody and the police interrogate him or her without giving a Miranda Warning, the suspect could still be convicted of the crime that they are charged with as long as the DA doesn't need the statements made by the suspect at the time of questioning.

Continue reading "Alabama Miranda Requirements: Don't Talk to Police (Part 1)" »

Joseph Goolsby, 19, of Pinson, Alabama has been charged with two counts of vehicular manslaughter in the deaths of Edgar Perez and Yasmine Aguilar. The couple had two children in the car at the time of the crash and Yasmine Aguilar was 8 months pregnant as well. The baby was delivered before Ms. Aguilar passed away and the other two children appear to be ok as well.

Reportedly, Mr. Goolsby's B.A.C. (blood alcohol content) was more than twice the legal limit at the time of the crash. The accident occurred at around 2:45 in the morning on Saturday, July 24.

This is a situation that I would consider a "worst case scenario." This is something that we all wish never happened. Two lives have been ended and several have been forever changed by the horrible decision presumably made by Mr. Goolsby to drive while intoxicated. This certainly fits vehicular manslaughter since the outcome was predictable when Mr. Goolsby decided to drive after drinking alcohol.

As an Alabama criminal defense attorney, I am cautious to avoid convicting someone without having the whole picture of evidence, but if what is being reported turns out to be true, Mr. Goolsby stands a very good chance of being convicted of these deaths and serving some time even if it is his first offense. This type of situation often receives relentless prosecution from a district attorney due to the horrendous circumstances.

The legal limit in Alabama for a person's B.A.C. is .08. What this means is that if you are found to have a B.A.C. above that limit, you are presumed to be too intoxicated to drive safely. In other words, you are presumed to be guilty of DUI. Don't let the numbers fool you though, you can still be found guilty of DUI with a B.A.C. of far less than the "legal limit." For example, a 19 year old could be found guilty of a DUI if their B.A.C. is .02 percent or higher, due to the fact that the legal drinking age is 21. Additionally, a school bus driver can be convicted for having B.A.C. of .02 or higher. Any driver can be convicted of DUI if they are observed driving erratically by a law enforcement officer and that officer determines that the driver is under the influence of something to the point where it is unsafe to drive.

Continue reading "Alabama Drunk Driver Charged in Deaths of Kids' Parents" »

As of July 1, 2010, it is illegal to possess marijuana substitutes or synthetic marijuana in Alabama. Act number 2010-717 was passed this year and signed into effect by Governor Riley.

Under the new law, possession of these marijuana substitutes will be treated the same as possession of marijuana. Possession for personal use only will be treated as a class A misdemeanor and carry a fine of up to $6000 and up to one year in jail. Subsequent possession for personal use or any possession for other than personal use will be treated as a class C felony which carries a fine of up to $15,000 and a prison sentence from one year and one day up to ten years.

These marijuana substitutes are often sold over the internet and in herbal stores. The products are sold as if they are legal substitutes and go by several names such as: Spice, Spice Gold, White Dragon, and K2.

The law gives citizens "a reasonable amount of time" to comply with the law. However, I would caution my clients that there is no date specific before which the law will not be enforced except the date of July 1, 2010, when it goes into effect. Therefore, if you are caught in possession of these items today, you could certainly be prosecuted.

Related Articles:
Anniston Star
Similar Arkansas Law Change

Continue reading "Alabama Marijuana Law Changes to Include Possession of Synthetic Cannabinoids or Marijuana Substitutes" »