Category Archives: Supreme Court

Supreme Court – The latest news about Supreme Court from the Lawstarz Blog – Latest news and coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Blog, Criminal, Legal News, Organized Crime, Supreme Court

Are you facing federal criminal charges in a federal court?

Federal Lawyers: Federal Crimes Cases Lawyers!

Best Federal Crimes Lawyers

Call Us @ 800-270-8184 or After Hours Cell 818-355-4076

Find Federal Criminal Defense Attorney

Are you facing federal criminal charges in a federal court? Federal crimes are the most serious types of crimes that one can be charged with. In America, a federal crime and offense is an act that is illegal by the United States federal legislation. In America, criminal charges and laws and prosecution occur at both federal and state levels, a federal crime is one that is prosecuted under federal criminal law, and not state law. The types of federal agents that run investigations of federal crimes are but not limited to the ATF, DEA, FBI, ICE, IRS, and the Secret Service.

Wiselaws, LLC has been successfully defending clients involved in federal criminal cases for many years now. Our roster of federal attorneys have defended cases i in pretty much every type of federal criminal charge. The federal lawyer that you choose is very important, so the same lawyer you hire for a DUI is not the same lawyer you would hire or retain for a federal criminal case because the complexity of a federal criminal charge in America is much more difficult to defend and is run by a different set of rules than a basic state criminal case. Many times federal law enforcement will set up surveillance to record conversations of the accused and the federal government has unlimited resources to do so in trying to obtain a conviction. Wiselaws, LLC is very experienced in tackling the use of this specific type of evidence in the courtroom, also we do a great job in discrediting the aspects of undercover agents and informants.

The Federal Criminal System

A big difference between the federal court system and the state court system in regards to criminal defense is that when the United States Attorney`s office prosecutes federal criminal charges they tend to have an extremely more amount of time, resources, and money to direct towards a criminal prosecution case than a state`s attorney would. It is very important that anyone hiring a federal criminal defense attorney for a case dealing with criminal charges or federal grand jury proceedings retain an attorney with great experience within the federal court system. Federal prosecutors are usually better attorneys than state prosecutors, we far better academic records as well as case records, and tend to hand pick the criminal cases they which to be apart of.

Tallahassee Federal Crime Lawyers – Orlando Federal Crime Lawyers – Dallas Federal Crime Lawyers – Fort Worth Federal Crime Lawyers – Honolulu Federal Crime Lawyers – Boise Federal Crime Lawyers – Bismarck Federal Crime Lawyers – Grafton Federal Crime Lawyers – Raleigh Federal Crime Lawyers – Durham Federal Crime Lawyers – Santa Fe Federal Crime Lawyers – Albuquerque Federal Crime Lawyers – Albany Federal Crime Lawyers – Phoenix Federal Crime Lawyers – Peoria Federal Crime Lawyers – Las Vegas Federal Crime Lawyers – Louisville Federal Crime Lawyers – Little Rock Federal Crime Lawyers – Los Angeles Federal Crime Lawyers – Miami Federal Crime Lawyers – Des Moines Federal Crime Lawyers – New Haven Federal Crime Lawyers – Indianapolis Federal Crime Lawyers – Detroit Federal Crime Lawyers – Joplin Federal Crime Lawyers – Biloxi Federal Crime Lawyers – Oklahoma City Federal Crime Lawyers – Portland Federal Crime Lawyers – Sioux Falls Federal Crime Lawyers – Nashville Federal Crime Lawyers – Memphis Federal Crime Lawyers – Houston Federal Crime Lawyers – Tacoma Federal Crime Lawyers – Minneapolis Federal Crime Lawyers – Provo Federal Crime Lawyers – Tulsa Federal Crime Lawyers – Annapolis Federal Crime Lawyers – Sacramento Federal Crime Lawyers – Denver Federal Crime Lawyers – Charlotte Federal Crime Lawyers –Boston Federal Crime Lawyers – Olympia Federal Crime Lawyers – Atlanta Federal Crime Lawyers – Santa Monica Federal Crime Lawyers – Malibu Federal Crime Lawyers – Tucson Federal Crime Lawyers– Scottsdale Federal Crime Lawyers – Beverly Hills Federal Crime Lawyers – Boca Raton Federal Crime Lawyers

Accounting Fraud Lawyers, Antitrust Lawyers, Bank Fraud Lawyers, Bankruptcy Fraud Lawyers, Bribery Lawyers, Child Pornography Lawyers, Computer Crimes Lawyers, Computer Hacking Lawyers, Conspiracy Lawyers, Controlled Substance Violations Lawyers, Identity Theft Lawyers, Medicare Fraud Lawyers, Money Laundering Lawyers, Public Corruption Lawyers, Real Estate Fraud Lawyers, RICO Crimes Lawyers, Securities Fraud Lawyers, Social Security Fraud Lawyers, Tax Crimes Lawyers, Tax Evasion Lawyers, Terrorism Lawyers, Weapons Charges Lawyers, Consumer Fraud Lawyers, Corporate Crimes Lawyers, Counterfeiting Lawyers, Customs Violations Lawyers, Drug Manufacturing Lawyers, Drug Possession Lawyers, Drug Smuggling Lawyers, Drug Trafficking Lawyers, Espionage Lawyers, Extortion Lawyers, Federal Drug Crimes Lawyers, Federal Property Crimes Lawyers, Forgery Lawyers, Gang Crimes Lawyers, Gun Law Violations Lawyers, Hate Crimes Lawyers, Health Care Fraud Lawyers, Immigration Law Violations Lawyers, Insurance Fraud Lawyers, Internet Fraud Lawyers, Mail Fraud Lawyers, Medicaid Fraud Lawyers, Mortgage Fraud

Federal Criminal Investigations

When you are contacted and sought out by federal authorities in respect to and in relation to a criminal investigation, you must first figure out if they are looking at you in the realm of being a federal witness or if they are looking to charged with a federal crime. The next approach is to make sure the statements you make to federal authorities you make safely and stay far away from the traps and games that like to play, it`s probably best you say nothing and hire a federal defense lawyer.

Federal Grand Jury Testimony

An federal criminal lawyer can also be retained when a person is given a subpoena to testify before a federal grand jury in Angie as like in a federal investigation, but it is not always clear if someone is being subpoenaed as a witness or subject for indictment. It is always important to hire a federal defense attorney in case of these types of situations, as a federal attorney can help work out a deal involving immunity if necessary in exchange for testimony.

Lawyers Either Know Federal Laws Or Not, and Wise Laws Does!

 

Visit our friends –  http://wiselaws.org/federal-crimes-lawyers.html

Blog, Civil Rights, Legal News, Supreme Court

Prospective Jurors Refuse to Serve Under Aaron Persky, the Judge in Brock Turner Case

Stassa Edwards

The East Bay Times reports that as many as ten prospective jurors have refused to serve under Aaron Persky, the judge who presided over Brock Turner’s sentencing, in a new, unrelated case.

According to the paper, one prospective juror stood up and said, “I can’t believe what you did,” referring to the six-month sentence Persky gave Turner after the ex-Stanford student was convicted of three felonies, including assault with the intent to commit rape. Another juror said, “I’m sorry, I can’t be here.” Persky’s new case is a misdemeanor stolen property case.

Each time a juror refused, Persky said “I understand,” thanked the juror and dismissed them.

Since Persky gave Turner his sentence (which will likely be reduced to three months) last week, there have been calls for his resignation and removal. Earlier this week, the Daily Dot covered two petitions for Persky’s recall, including one by Stanford professor Michele Dauber. On Sunday, Dauber shared a letterwritten by Dan Turner, Brock’s father, advocating for leniency. In that letter, Dan Turner described his son’s sexual assault on an unconscious woman as “20 minutes of action.”

Persky, who was recently reelected to the bench after running unopposed, has a history of presiding over controversial rape cases. In 2011, Persky presided over the civil case of an underage victim who alleged that she was gang-raped by multiple members of the De Anza College basketball team in 2007.

That case has shades of the Turner case: an unconscious victim, college athletes, and bystanders who intervened to end the assault, all on a college campus. Though none of the alleged De Anza rapists were ever prosecuted (a deeply controversial decision made by Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office), the victim sought recourse in civil court, suing for $7.5 million in damages.

During that civil trial, Persky made a controversial evidentiary ruling whichallowed the jury to view seven photographs of the alleged victim “partying about a year or so after the alleged gang rape. In the photos, she is scantily clad, wearing a garter belt and what appear to be fishnet stockings.” Lawyers for the defendant claimed that the photographs were a “direct contradiction” of the alleged victim’s claims. The victim, inevitably, lost the lawsuit.

Though the De Anza case didn’t go “viral,” it speaks, perhaps, to the contradictions of a judge who campaigned as tough on sexual predators and a vocal advocate of victims.

From – http://jezebel.com/prospective-jurors-refuse-to-serve-under-aaron-persky-1781618871

Blog, Divorce, Family, Legal News, Supreme Court

Va. Supreme Court rules same-sex couples equal in divorce law

By GRAHAM MOOMAW Richmond Times-Dispatch

The Supreme Court of Virginia has ruled that a Fairfax County man can stop paying spousal support to his ex-wife because she lives with another woman, reversing lower courts that found the state’s cohabitation standard does not apply to same-sex couples.

The ruling, handed down late last week, clarifies a section of Virginia divorce law nearly a year after same-sex marriage became legal nationwide.

The case stemmed from the separation of Michael Luttrell and Samantha Cucco, who divorced in 2008 after being married for 16 years. Luttrell agreed to pay alimony to Cucco for eight years.

Under state law, alimony payments can be cut off if the payee remarries or has been “habitually cohabitating with another person in a relationship analogous to a marriage” for a year or more.

Luttrell sought to end the payments in 2014. He said in court filings that Cucco was engaged to her new partner and had been living with her for more than a year.

Cucco argued her situation did not qualify as cohabitation because the relationship was with another woman.

Both Fairfax County Circuit Court and the Virginia Court of Appeals ruled in Cucco’s favor; the courts found that cohabitation was understood to apply only to relationships between a man and a woman.

The state Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and said their interpretation would produce an “untenable result” of unequal treatment in identical divorce situations.

“The individual in the same-sex relationship would continue to receive support while the individual in the opposite-sex relationship would not,” Justice William C. Mims wrote in the high court’s opinion. “We cannot conclude that the General Assembly intended such a result.”

Mims was serving in the legislature in 1997 when the alimony statute at the heart of the case was amended.

Mims noted in the opinion that the General Assembly considered language clearly defining cohabitation as only pertaining to the opposite sex, but that amendment was rejected in favor of the broader language in the law today.

“By declining to modify the word ‘person’ with the phrase ‘of the opposite sex,’ the General Assembly signaled its intention that ‘person’ would include individuals of either sex,” he wrote.

John P. O’Herron, a Richmond appellate attorney who tracked the case, said it was somewhat unusual because Cucco did not contest the appeals above the circuit court.

Though the case pertains to new legal questions posed by gay marriage, O’Herron said the ruling likely will affect only the specific issue in divorce law.

“I really don’t see this as sort of altering the landscape,” he said.

The ACLU of Virginia represented Luttrell in the case. Gail Deady, an ACLU of Virginia lawyer focused on gender equality, said the ruling recognizes that “all laws regarding marriage must be applied equally regardless of the gender of the individuals involved.”

“Marriage equality means marriage equality,” Deady said.

Sourced From   – http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/article_80ae492a-0a9b-5ae0-9df8-5f7efe1fdc0c.html

Blog, Business Law, Criminal, Drug Companies, Legal News, Supreme Court

Study: There’s no scientific basis for laws regulating marijuana and driving

WASHINGTON (AP) — Six states that allow marijuana use legal tests to determine driving while impaired by the drug that have no scientific basis, according to a study by the nation’s largest automobile club that calls for scrapping those laws.

The study commissioned by AAA’s safety foundation said it’s not possible to set a blood-test threshold for THC, the chemical in marijuana that makes people high, that can reliably determine impairment.

Yet the laws in five of the six states automatically presume a driver guilty if that person tests higher than the limit, and not guilty if it’s lower.

As a result, drivers who are unsafe may be going free while others may be wrongly convicted, the foundation said.

The foundation recommends replacing the laws with ones that rely on specially trained police officers to determine if a driver is impaired, backed up by a test for the presence of THC rather than a specific threshold. The officers are supposed to screen for dozens of indicators of drug use, from pupil dilation and tongue color to behavior.

The foundation’s recommendation to scrap the laws in Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington comes as legislatures in several more states consider adopting similar laws.

At least three states, and possibly as many as eleven, will vote this fall on ballot measures to legalize marijuana for either recreational or medicinal use, or both. Several legislatures are also considering legalization bills.

“There is understandably a strong desire by both lawmakers and the public to create legal limits for marijuana impairment in the same manner we do alcohol,” said Marshall Doney, AAA’s president and CEO. “In the case of marijuana, this approach is flawed and not supported by scientific research.”

Determining whether someone is impaired by marijuana, as opposed to having simply used the drug at some time, is far more complex than the simple and reliable tests that have been developed for alcohol impairment.

There’s no science that shows drivers become impaired at a specific level of THC in the blood. A lot depends upon the individual. Drivers with relatively high levels of THC in their systems might not be impaired, especially if they are regular users, while others with relatively low levels may be unsafe behind the wheel.

Full Article – http://www.businessinsider.com/study-theres-no-scientific-basis-for-laws-regulating-marijuana-and-driving-2016-5