West Palm Beach Criminal Lawyer Blog

John Goodman is again asking for a new trial -- this time because a juror, who wrote a book about his experiences, conducted a drinking experiment outside the courtroom during the trial to see how he reacted to consuming three alcoholic drinks, the number of drinks witnesses reported seeing Goodman consume on the night of the crash. Juror Dennis DeMartin told the Palm Beach Post that his experiment wasn't a big factor in his deciding that Goodman was guilty. He said it had nothing to do with the case, he just wanted to see how it felt.

But defense attorneys are now using this information to once again seek a new trial and Judge Colbath has ordered that DeMartin will be questioned on Friday, May 11th. Unlike his fellow juror, St. John, DeMartin's conduct took place during the actual trial. Colbath already ruled that St. John's statements, after the trial, that he doubted the verdict, were insufficient to warrant a new trial. In his order denying the new trial based upon St. John's statement, Colbath wrote, "To allow such decisions to be attacked months or even years after the close of a case simply because a juror experiences post-verdict regret would open our trial system to a virtual onslaught of attacks from dissatisfied parties and jurors."

But DeMartin's "experiment" took place during the trial, actually, the night before deliberations. And although he now says that his conduct didn't play a large role in his determination of guilt, the fact that it played any role at all could very well gain Goodman a new trial.

DeMartin explained to the Post that he didn't know what he was doing wasn't allowed. However, the preliminary instructions, which are read at the start of every criminal trial in Florida, include the following language:

"[I]f you investigate, research or make inquiries on your own outside of the courtroom, the trial judge has no way to assure they are proper and relevant to the case. The parties likewise have no opportunity to dispute the accuracy of what you find or to provide rebuttal evidence to it. That is contrary to our judicial system, which assures every party the right to ask questions about and rebut the evidence being considered against it and to present argument with respect to that evidence. Non-court inquiries and investigations unfairly and improperly prevent the parties from having that opportunity our judicial system promises. If you become aware of any violation of these instructions or any other instruction I give in this case, you must tell me by giving a note to the bailiff."

This would have been read to DeMartin and the other jurors before the trial even began. Time will tell if Colbath grants Goodman a new trial based upon this new information. If not, it will likely be appealed by defense attorneys after Goodman is sentenced.

John Goodman’s defense team questioned jurors with the Court’s permission yesterday, and one juror said that he wasn’t convinced of Goodman’s guilt. Juror Michael St. John said that he was pressured by other jurors to find Goodman guilty of DUI manslaughter.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jurors were polled. This means that each individual juror is asked if the verdict that the jury returned was his true and correct verdict. This would give a juror who is not truly sure an opportunity to express his concern. But instead, after returning the guilty verdict, upon being polled, St. John said that guilty was his verdict. Now, he seems to be changing his tune. Or at least indicating some regret.

Goodman’s lead defense attorney, Roy Black, said that St. John’s testimony indicates that Goodman couldn’t get a fair trial in Palm Beach County. Black has petitioned the Court for a change of venue prior to the start of the trial but Circuit Judge Jeffrey Colbath denied the motion to move the trial out of the county. Now, this may be the very issue that Goodman uses to try to get a new trial on appeal.

According to Rule 910.03 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, criminal trials are generally supposed to be tried in the county in which the crime was committed. However, if the Court finds that a fair and impartial jury can’t be impaneled in the county where the offense occurred, then the court may select a jury from another county. If this occurs, then the new county of venue is supposed to closely resemble the demographic composition of the original county of venue, in this case, Palm Beach County.

Prior to the trial, defense attorney Roy Black argued that the case should be moved to Miami Dade County.

When a trial court rules on a motion for a change of venue, there are two factors to consider: (1) the extent and nature of any pretrial publicity, and (2) the difficulty in actually picking a jury in that county. The trial court’s ruling is discretionary and on appeal, it will not be reversed unless there was an abuse of discretion. According to the Florida Supreme Court in the case of Griffin v. State, 866 So.2d 1 (2003), “[t]he test for determining whether to grant a change of venue is whether the inhabitants of a community are so infected by knowledge of the incident and accompanying prejudice, bias, and preconceived opinions that jurors could not possibly put these matters out of their minds and try the case solely on the evidence presented in the courtroom.”

In Goodman’s case, even if he can establish that the court abused its discretion and that the pretrial publicity in Palm Beach County was so extensive and prejudicial to Goodman, it will be hard for the defense to challenge the second consideration. Goodman’s defense attorneys seemed to have little difficulty in picking a jury in Palm Beach County. In fact, they didn’t even use all of their jury strikes before the jury was successfully empaneled. This fact may make a venue challenge more difficult.

Goodman may still seek an appeal on the basis of the jury misconduct in and of itself – that he did not in fact receive a fair trial. But this is unlikely to win him a new trial given that the juror did say after returning the verdict that it was his verdict. Jurors who change their mind or feel guilty after rendering an opinion don’t entitle someone to a new trial.

Palm Beach County Commissioners recently approved a new rehab center in Palm Beach County. A former 114 bed hotel and restaurant located at Lake Worth Road and the Florida Turnpike will be converted to a treatment facility operated by Behavioral Health of the Palm Beaches.

The Palm Beach County Commissioners voted 5-0 in favor of the project, despite dozens of nearby residents’ objections to the plan. Residents argued that the treatment center would increase crime in their neighborhood.

While we are known for having large numbers of drug and alcohol rehabilitation centers in Palm Beach County, we also do not have sufficient beds for those who need and want treatment, particularly for those in need of state-funded rehabilitation programs. In fact, it is not at all uncommon for a person to sit in the Palm Beach County jail for weeks, even months at times, while waiting for a bed to become available at the Drug Abuse Foundation (DAF).

There is certainly a link between drug abuse and crime. Many offenders have cited drug use as the reason they committed crimes, including robbery, burglary, and theft. But isn’t a rehabilitation center, which aims to end the addiction a solution to the problem of crime? Residents shouldn’t be so quick to protest. In fact, County Commissioners actually found that the rehabilitation center would have a positive effect on crime in the community, which is why it was unanimously approved.

Last week, George Zimmerman’s former attorneys, Hal Uhrig and Craig Sonner, appeared at a press conference and made some startling statements about their notorious ex-client that left some wondering if they breached the attorney/client privilege.

The concept of attorney/client privilege is clear. It means that anything you tell your lawyer, any actions you undertake with regard to the legal problems with which you find yourself and any strategy plotted to deal with said problems are all confidential. The lawyers may not discuss such things, and the clients would do well to keep quiet too in order to preserve the privelege.
Uhrig and Sonner may have unwittingly wronged their client when they appeared before national media outlets to say they were concerned for Zimmerman because he was "not doing well emotionally" and "may not be in complete control of what's going on." They were offended that Zimmerman had reached out to conservative talk show host Sean Hannity without their consent, and then called Special Prosecutor Angela Corey who refused to speak to him.

Discussing their client’s mental state and declaring that he may not be in control of his own actions could injure their client’s case. Revealing that Zimmerman has not been in contact with them made it sound that Zimmerman may be in the wind, a claim that, while not true, appeared to make the special prosecutor hasten the decision to arrest him.
The rules of confidentiality are clear. According to The American Bar Association’s rules for professional responsibility “a lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent.” Since, by their own admission, Zimmerman has not spoken to them, it appears that consent may not have been given to these lawyers in this scenario.

The Florida Bar rule is almost identical to that of the ABA and these rules stay in place even after the lawyer/client relationship has ended. At the end of the day “Lawyers are officers of the court and they are responsible to the judiciary for the propriety of their professional activities” (Florida Rules of Professional Conduct).

So, did the actions of Uhrig and Sonner defy this rule and are their actions egregious enough to be considered unethical?

The fact that Zimmerman called Angela Corey indicates the actions of a desperate and ill-informed defendant. Defendants and prosecutors don’t have a speaking relationship for good reason. Prosecutors who speak to those represented by counsel are doing themselves a disservice just as much as they are the defendant. Anything a defendant says to the prosecutor could be considered inadmissible, threatening the state’s case. The defendant has a constitutional right to keep quiet and not talk to authorities outside the presence of counsel for good reason. It benefits both the defendant and the prosecutor.

Sonner, who had agreed to take Zimmerman’s case pro bono until such time as he may be charged with a crime, revealed “I know his phone works, but he’s not returning my text messages or my calls.” Uhrig went on to clarify that Zimmerman had told prosecutors that he did not have any lawyers, only legal advisors. “I’m not sure what the distinction is, but in his mind there’s a distinction,” Uhrig said. He went on to state that Zimmerman was “not in the state of Florida.”

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said the press conference was “one of the wackiest news conferences I have ever seen” and called it a “bizarre episode” that may force the special prosecutor to arrest Zimmerman to prevent him from running. In fact, that appears to be just what happened because within hours of the “bizarre” press conference, Special Prosecutor Angela Corey did indeed charge Zimmerman with second degree murder.

At the end of the interview, Uhrig and Sonner assured Zimmerman via the airwaves that they would be happy to continue on as his legal team. After the “help” they have given him thus far, perhaps it is wise he chose Mark O’Mara instead.

Lionel Ritchie was a guest on Pierce Morgan’s show a few days ago. Morgan asked him his feelings about the Trayvon Martin case. Ritchie mistakenly and continually referred to George Zimmerman as a “security guard” and raised the possibility that Trayvon Martin wasn’t sure if he was being mugged or apprehended when he and Zimmerman made that fateful contact, however that came about. Morgan did not correct him, and this is how rumors get started. Ritchie’s categorization of Zimmerman as a security guard is just one of many pieces of misinformation surrounding this case.

With all the speculation, opinion and conjecture about the Trayvon Martin case in Florida, it’s time to get our facts straight. There are a few things that we know for sure; things that neither time, talking heads or the court of public opinion can change.

We know, for example, that Trayvon Martin, a child in the eyes of the law, is dead, the victim of a gunshot wound to the chest. We know the shooter is a self-proclaimed, self-appointed Neighborhood Watch Captain (not a security guard), he’s part-Hispanic, and his name is George Zimmerman. We know that Martin was unarmed, holding only an Arizona Ice Tea can and a bag of Skittles. We know it was chilly and rainy the night of February 26, 2012, reason enough to raise the hood on the lightweight jacket known as a hoodie worn by the victim. The Sanford Police department did not arrest Zimmerman, but they did detain and question him, after which they decided against pressing charges, saying that Zimmerman acted in self-defense.

And about that self-defense claim, there are conflicting reports on that as well. Zimmerman says he was sucker-punched in the nose by Trayvon Martin, who then knocked him to the ground and beat his head against the cement. But the funeral director who handled Martin’s body reported no bruising or lacerations consistent with a fistfight on Martin’s hands or body. Police surveillance tapes show Zimmerman being led into the police department, and there are no obvious signs of blood, cuts or broken bones on his person either. There were two eye witnesses to the scuffle, but their stories cancel each other out. One says Martin was on the bottom fighting for his life, the other says it was Zimmerman who lay on the ground.

There are several key questions that need to be answered to the satisfaction of all who are paying attention. Was Zimmerman hurt? Was Martin’s female friend “Dee Dee”, the one he was talking to when he first saw Zimmerman coming after him, telling the truth when she said she overheard an exchange between Zimmerman and Martin moments before Martin was killed? What evidence is there that Martin’s body had been involved in a fist fight? These questions, as posed by the Christian Science Monitor, if answered would go a long way towards establishing Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence.

The case has put Florida under the microscope yet again. The controversial “Stand Your Ground” law that was being discussed immediately after the news hit the Internet has been discussed by legal minds and talking heads on news shows, the Internet and in print media. Because Zimmerman is claiming self-defense, the law probably doesn’t apply in this case, but it does warrant a closer look.

Florida Statute 776.032 is the law in question, commonly known as the “Stand Your Ground” statute. It states in pertinent part:
“A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012 (in defense of person), s. 776.013 (home protection), s. 776.031 (in defense of others) is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer…”

In 2010, in Dennis v. State, the Supreme Court of Florida ruled that when a person asserts a defense based on the Stand Your Ground law, the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the facts. If the trial court determines that Stand Your Ground applies, then the case is dismissed, without a jury ever having heard the case.

In the George Zimmerman case, he is claiming self-defense, at least in the press. He could conceivably claim that he was permitted to use force pursuant to the self-defense law (Florida Statute 776.012) and should therefore be immune from criminal prosecution pursuant to Stand Your Ground. Then it becomes up to a trial judge to determine if he was justified in using deadly force against Martin. If the judge finds that he was justified, the case would be dismissed. If the judge finds that he wasn’t justified, then the case would go to a jury and he could assert a claim of self-defense and let the jury determine the facts.

Interestingly, the Stand Your Ground law also states: “A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force…but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.”

This means that if the police investigating the Martin believed that Zimmerman’s use of force was probably justified (the probable cause standard), then they were actually prohibited from arresting him as a matter of law.

Of course, all of this is predicated on whether or not Zimmerman was actually acting in self-defense, a question still left unanswered. Florida’s self-defense law states, “ [A] person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.”

Zimmerman’s claim is that he was preventing “great bodily harm to himself” because he was being battered by Martin. Advocates for Zimmerman’s arrest assert that Zimmerman was the initiator of the altercation and that he can’t now claim Stand Your Ground immunity after he antagonized Martin to start the physical confrontation in the first place. The facts are clearly in dispute and will only be resolved by a jury, if and when Zimmerman is arrested and if and when a trial judge denies his Stand Your Ground motion. If Zimmerman is arrested, it will likely be months, if not years, before the case gets resolved. In the meantime, legislators are taking a much closer look at Florida’s Stand Your Ground law and seriously considering making changes to a law that could keep the killer of an unarmed child on the street.

Panhandling is one of those things that comes with living in a city. It isn’t always the most pleasant situation. A person, generally someone who is homeless, comes up to you at an intersection, on the street, or by the beach, and solicits you for money. It’s not always comfortable because people can feel obligated, guilty if they don’t give, sometimes afraid of the individual asking for money who may be mentally ill and may appear threatening. But is it illegal? And can it be illegal?

Fort Lauderdale is considering issuing new ordinances prohibiting panhandling in more areas of the city. They currently already prohibit it on beaches, beach sidewalks, and within 150 feet of Atlantic Blvd. or Seabreeze Blvd. The new proposals would increase the “no panhandling” zones to the downtown area (bus stops, public transportation, within 15 feet of any sidewalk café, any city parking lot, any city park, within 15 feet of an ATM or commercial or city building) and would also prohibit what they are deeming “aggressive panhandling” city-wide. The proposals define “aggressive panhandling” as repeatedly begging after being told no, approaching a person in a threatening manner, touching without permission, blocking a person’s path, and intimidating or forcing a person to give something.

The ordinances would make it a second degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $500 fine or 60 days in jail, if violated. But, the ordinances would specifically except street performers or people quietly holding up donation signs by saying that they are not panhandlers.

Courts have routinely held that such anti-panhandling statutes are unconstitutional in other jurisdictions. This includes an anti-begging ordinance in Jacksonville that was overturned in 1984 because it violated the right to free speech. But the Jacksonville ordinance banned all begging, not just in certain, defined areas. The Court said that a total ban on begging throughout the city was too extreme a burden on free speech.

St. Petersburg had a similar ordinance to the one in Jacksonville. It too prohibited begging throughout the city and it too was deemed unconstitutional in 1995.

Panhandlers were routinely arrested and prosecuted in Palm Beach County for “blocking the roadway” until the State Attorney’s Office declared that they would no longer pursue prosecution of these cases because of the Constitutional violation. People begging for money would be arrested, but a person who was asking for donations for a charity, such as military veterans, were not being arrested. This is called “selective enforcement”—when police and prosecutors take a law that is otherwise constitutional and make it unconstitutional by only apply the law to a certain group of people and not others. In this case, only homeless individuals were being targeted, which makes it unconstitutional. The State Attorney’s Office in Palm Beach County agreed and announced in 2010 that they would no longer enforce this law.

If Fort Lauderdale passes the new ordinances, they may be challenged on their constitutionality. Time will tell if they are deemed overly broad, as the St. Petersburg and Jacksonville ordinances were. In the meantime, people panhandling in Fort Lauderdale may be exposed to being arrested.

Last weekend, the New York Times published an interesting opinion article. They questioned what would happen if thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people charged with crimes in the United States chose not to plead guilty, instead opting to exercise their Sixth Amendment right to trial.

When our forefathers drafted our Bill of Rights, they included a provision that states that any person accused of a crime who is facing a jail or prison sentence, is entitled to a trial by jury. This is the Sixth Amendment. However, when it was drafted it was a different time. As the population of the United States has risen through the years so has the crime rate. While state funding for building prisons and incarcerating individuals increases each year, the budget for the court system rarely goes up at all, and in recent years in Florida it has even declined. That means that although people are guaranteed a right to trial in front of a jury by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, realistically there simply aren’t enough courtrooms, enough judges or enough prosecutors to realistically give everyone the trial they are entitled to.

So what does the system do to keep on functioning? The system is designed so that the vast majority of people who are accused of crimes plead guilty. The way this is done, is that individuals are charged with crimes that carry with them harsh penalties and in some cases minimum mandatory sentences. Then, prosecutors will offer enticing plea deals to get a person to give up their right to a jury trial and take the plea. Some people argue that this system can even entice an innocent person to plead guilty. Although it is a natural tendency for a person to believe that he or she would never plead guilty to charges when they did not commit the crime, the reality is quite different. If a person is facing a harsh sentence such as life in prison or a twenty (20) year minimum mandatory sentence for instance, and yet he is offered probation and a free pass out of jail the same day, it is enticing to accept the plea even if innocent.

Take for example the case of Berma Fae Stuart who was reported on in the New York Times article. Ms. Stuart is a single African American mother of two who was arrested when she was thirty (30) years old for drug charges. Ms. Stuart sat in jail in Texas awaiting trial while she had no one to care for her two young children. After spending a month in jail awaiting trial and being offered probation, Ms. Stuart decided to accept the plea deal although she maintained her innocence throughout the process.

However, after her release, Ms. Stuart faced even harsher penalties. As a convicted felon, she was barred from receiving food stamps and she was evicted from the public housing development where she once resided. Since she was then homeless, Ms. Stuart lost her children who were taken away from her and placed in foster care. Had she gone to trial, she may have been exonerated. Or, she may have been convicted and may have faced years in prison in Texas.

The very nature of trial is that it is a gamble. And the fact of the matter is, it is a gamble that many people facing criminal charges do not wish to make. Certainly, if hundreds of thousands of those accused of crimes opted to take their case to trial by jury, the justice system would be a stand still. The court system simply does not have the resources to try all of those individuals, especially if they chose to have a speedy trial. And in the State of Florida, the law states that a person is entitled to a speedy trial, which Florida defines as ninety (90) days from the date of arrest. If a person is not tried within that brief window, and he has not waived his right to a speedy trial, then he is forever barred from being prosecuted for that charge.

But asking thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people to take a huge risk by asserting their right to trial, is simply unrealistic. As a result, we are left with the justice system that we have. A justice system where sometimes the innocent plead guilty, and sometimes those that deserve harsh sentences are given great breaks, just because the prosecutor doesn’t have the time to take the case to trial. If that person is facing life in prison, or a twenty (20) year minimum mandatory sentence, and is offered probation, and yet state funding for incarceration

The most common kind of evidence in a criminal trial is eyewitness testimony – the word of a person who saw the crime or who is the victim of the crime. They come into court, months after the crime happened, sometimes years after, and they get on the witness stand and are questioned about what they saw, heard, said, so long ago. Studies have shown that eyewitness testimony is not a very reliable source. This is because during an emotionally strained incident, such as during an attack, during a robbery, during a mugging, a person is in a state of shock. His or her ability to perceive things can be altered as a result. This is why hundreds of innocent people have been released from prisons because of DNA testing that showed they didn’t commit the crimes of which they were convicted – convictions that were typically the result of flawed eyewitness testimony. It’s not that the witnesses are lying…they just don’t accurately remember exactly what happened, how it happened, the sequence of events, or exactly what the perpetrator looked like.

Enter the videotape. Videos, unlike a witness’ memory, can’t be forgotten. A video doesn’t merely observe something and try to recollect it later. It records the images, and potentially also audio, to be viewed again and again. It is a very strong piece of evidence that jurors in a criminal prosecution love to see because ideally, jurors would love to have been there for the crime. They want to see with their own eyes exactly what happened.

Video evidence was once a thing that came up on a rare occasion. But that is no longer the case. This day and age, police cars are equipped with video cameras, police officers wear miniature microphones on their uniforms, business have video surveillance running 24 hours a day, there are cameras in ATMS, traffic lights, toll booths. Most of our lives outside of our homes seem to be caught on some kind of a camera these days. As a result, more and more investigations and more and more crimes are caught on video.

Take for instance a DUI offense. Once, it was up to a police officer who makes hundreds of DUI arrests every year to remember all of the facts and circumstances of that particular arrest and testify to that. Now, almost every DUI in Palm Beach County has a video of the entire roadside investigation, including the administration of field sobriety exercises, and sometimes even the person’s driving pattern, a view of why they were pulled over in the first place.

Another prime example is the assault of a bus driver in Lauderhill Lakes. A man on the bus hit the brakes and then punched the driver, allegedly trying to steal his cell phone. The entire incident was caught on the surveillance video inside the Broward County transit bus.

A fire that broke out in a Honduras prison killed as many as 356 people and is now being called one of the deadliest prison fires in a century. The fire started when an inmate set fire to his bedding. It quickly spread and officials were unable to free the locked-in prisoners in time to save their lives.

Although prisons in the United States are required to have a means of releasing the inmates in such an emergency situation, such as a button that opens the cell doors all at once, many underdeveloped nations don't have such emergency precautions in place. Instead, at this particular prison, officials had to individually open cells. With the fire spreading rapidly in a matter of minutes, many cells weren't reached and prisoners had no means of escaping the flames.

Outraged by the overcrowding in the prisons, which certainly led to the high number of deaths, and the complete lack of emergency preparedness, the families of inmates have been rioting and protesting since the fire occurred.

Although the U.S. has emergency measures in place, overcrowding is still a serious problem in many state prisons, including in the state of Florida. According to the Florida Department of Corrections statistics, in 2011, Florida prisons had over 33,800 new admissions into the prison system. This put the total prison population in the state at over 100,000 inmates. Even with emergency procedures in place, a fire such as the one in Honduras, could still lead to unnecessary deaths based upon the sheer number of inmates crammed into a cell.

Circumstantial evidence--it's a term we all hear on TV lawyer and police shows all the time. "The case is purely circumstantial." Defense attorneys on television throw this sentence around in almost every episode of Law & Order. But what exactly is circumstantial evidence? Circumstantial evidence is sometimes also called indirect evidence. Basically put, evidence is circumstantial when it doesn't directly prove guilt, but rather, it's merely a chain in the fence that leads towards guilty. Circumstantial evidence proves a fact that allows you to make an inference of guilt. It's a difficult thing to define with words, but you know it when you see it. For instance, in say a murder trial where a husband is found dead, it is circumstantial evidence against his wife to prove that his wife took out a life insurance policy for him for a million dollars two weeks before he died. In and of itself, that fact surely doesn't prove that she killed him. But, it proves a circumstance that allows you to infer that she did, in this case, it namely proves motive, which is always a type of circumstantial evidence.

But is circumstantial evidence admissible in a criminal trial? And if it is, is it enough to convict a person of a crime? Does it matter if the crime is misdemeanor assault or first degree murder? Circumstantial evidence is most definitely admissible in a criminal trial. It can be considered by a jury and believed or disbelieved like any other piece of evidence. And depending on the amount and nature of circumstantial evidence, it could even be enough to lead to a conviction. As long as a jury belives that a crime has been proven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt, it doesn't matter whether the evidence used to prove the crime is circumstantial or direct evidence. Further, it doesn't matter what type of crime it is. The standard of proof in each and every criminal case says that a crime has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, regardless of the severity of the crime and despite the possibile sentencing consequences. So it makes no diffierence at all if it's a misdemeanor assault or first degree murder trial.

The murder trial of Shanovia Mack, which is currently taking place in Palm Beach County, is a prime example of when circumstantial evidence can be used against a person. Mack is alleged to have been involved in the murder of a boyfriend who had hit her. The allegation is that Mack's cousin pistol-whipped a friend of the boyfriend and during this incident, the gun went off, shooting and killing the boyfriend. Mack is charged with second degree murder. From the bare facts alleged, it hardly seems that the State could make out murder charges against Mack. Sure, she was there when it happened, but that hardly proves she's guilty of murder. Second degree murder is where a person is engaging in some act that is imminently dangerous, he shows a disregard for human life, and a person is killed as a result. Even if Mack told her cousin to beat the guy up for hitting her, which the State would have to prove, that doesn't mean that she would know he'd use a gun in doing so.

But, alas, circumstantial evidence also was admitted that showed that Mack told her boyfriend she would have him "murked", which is slang for murdered. She also sent numerous text messages indicated that he was "dead" because of what he did to her. Whether or not these bits of circumstantial evidence rise to proving her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest burden under the law, is now for the jury to determine. But if she is convicted, it appears as if circumstantial evidence will be Mack's downfall.

Boynton Beach Mayor, Jose Rodriguez, was arrested today on public corruption charges. He is accused of using his political position to try to end an abuse investigation against him. The allegations are that he was being investigated for abusing his estranged wife and her child. He allegedly bullied police officers and offered the city's interim manager a full-time position in exchange for her stopping the investigation against him. Rodriguez is being prosecuted by the public corruption unit of the State Attorney's Office. He is presently being charged with unlawful compensation or reward for official behavior (or bribery), solicitation to commit unlawful disclosure of confidential criminal information, and obstruction of a law-enforcement officer. According to Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office Records, Rodriguez was released on $8,000 bail.

Everyone's done it at one time or another--accidentally bounced a check. You get your statement from the bank and realize your error. Or worse, you get contacted by someone, a creditor, a utility company, your nephew whose birthday check bounced, and you realize you screwed up and didn't balance your account correctly. You wrote a check when you didn't have enough money in your account to cover the face value of the check. It happens to everyone with a checking account at some point in their lives.

But sometimes, depending on the circumstances, it can be a crime. Just ask Darrell Armstrong, assistant coach for the basketball team the Dallas Mavericks. He was arrested Tuesday for a warrant out of Las Vegas for an incident dealing with non-sufficient funds. The details of Armstrong's case haven't yet been released, but it brings into the spotlight a crime that is very little known. In Florida, it is called "Issuing a Worthless Check" and it can be either a misdemanor or a felony, depending on the amount of the check.

In Florida, under Statute 832.05(2), if a person draws or issues a check and presents it as payment, either by cashing it or using it to purchase goods, and the person knows at the time he writes the check that there aren't sufficient funds in the account (or on credit) to pay the check, it's a crime. If the value of the check is less than $150, it's a first degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail. If the check is for $150 or more, it's a third degree felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Those are some very steep penalties for a bounced check.

The reason this charge is little known is because of the knowledge element. The person writing the check has to KNOW that it will bounce. For the average person who bounces a check, that's not the case; it's usually an accident or an accounting error. The bigger problem is not only does the person writing the check have to know it's a bad check, but the prosecution has to be able to prove that he knew it was bad. That's a huge hurdle to cross. It's one of the most difficult aspects of criminal law to try to prove what someone knew and when. Without an admission, it's extremely difficult to do.

Meanwhile, we await the facts of Armstrong's case coming to light to see exactly what he's accused of and whether or not the prosecution can prove it under Las Vegas law. He has posted a $40,000 bond and has returned to his coaching position in the interum.