Last November, 26 year-old Robert Champion, a drum major at Florida A&M, lost his life in a tragic case of hazing-gone-wrong. His case took a decisively strange turn last week, when one of the defendants alleged that Champion had asked for the hazing.

"It's a respect thing," said band member Jonathan Boyce, "He was wanting to do it... all season."

A recent New York Times article summarized the brutality that Champion endured: "[As Champion] entered the dark bus, [he] was pummeled with hands, drumsticks, bass drum mallets, straps and even an orange cone. At least 15 band members struck and kicked Mr. Champion as he tried to reach the back of the bus."

Boyce's suggestion that Champion wanted to be subjected to this treatment directly contradicts comments made by the victim's father, who has asserted that his son got hazed precisely because he opposed the ritual, which had become a dark tradition among FAMU's Marching 100 band.

Champion's hazing death became national news not only because of the brutal details but also because of the band's prominence. It is (or at least it was) one of the most renowned institutions of its kind in the country. Among other gigs, the band has played the Super Bowl.

All told, 13 people have been charged in connection with the drum major's death: 11 face third-degree felony charges, while two face misdemeanors.

If you're a Florida criminal defendant, what lessons can you draw from this tragedy?

#1: Cases have a strange way of getting twisted at the strangest times.

You can never fully anticipate what the prosecution might have in store for you. That means…

#2: Effective preparation is crucial.


The more you prepare, and the more systematically you do so, the more difficult it will be for prosecutors to "catch you off guard" and complicate your defense.

#3: Retaining a reputable, experienced Florida criminal lawyer can mean the difference between a lengthy jail sentence and freedom.

The team at Seltzer Law, P.A. can help you develop an appropriate, systematic, and strategic defense to your charges. Connect with us today online, or call us for immediate free help -- day or night -- at 1-888-THE-DEFENSE (888-843-3333).

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has set its sites on stopping cyber crime in Florida and beyond. In March, FBI Director Robert Mueller announced that cyber crime is now the Bureau's third most important priority, just behind counterintelligence and counterterrorism.

David West, a supervisor for the FBI based in Georgia, summarized the rationale for the intensified focus: "[the cybercrime industry] did not exist in the way it does today 20 years ago and, with respect to businesses, the direct impact of cybercrime is in the billions of dollars."

Increasingly Diverse Battlegrounds

The types of cyber crimes, as well as the motivations behind these acts, are diversifying at a rapid and alarming rate. As we have moved into the "Web 2.0" era, we've witnessed something of an arms race between criminals and law enforcement.

Back in the "Wild West" days of the internet, cybercriminals often worked as jacks-of-all-trades. Today, however, there is simply too much technology -- too many options -- to master. Thus, both perpetrators and those who work to neutralize cybercrime have developed more specific, niche-like strategies. What this means is that fewer and fewer people -- even at the expert level -- deeply understand what's happening on a granular level.

What to Do If You've Been Arrested for Cyber Crime in Florida

Whether you hacked into a south Florida bank's security system; or you and several international partners got arrested for a complex phishing scam, you're probably feeling pretty scared. You could, indeed, face jail time, massive fees, probation, forced remuneration to victims, and more. If convicted of a felony cyber crime, you could serve over a year in jail and lose important rights, such as the right to vote in elections.

Constructing a Powerful Legal Defense

There are no "cookie-cutter defenses" to cyber crime charges. To build your strategy, your Florida criminal lawyer will need to consider a variety of factors, such as:

• The jurisdiction in which you're charged;
• The nature and scope of the damage done;
• All the laws and case histories that might be applicable;
• Whether you have a past history of crime;
• Whether you committed additional crimes during the commission of the cyber crime.

If you've been arrested, do not delay getting appropriate legal help immediately. Seltzer Law, P.A., is a well-known and respected cyber crime defense law firm. Call us toll-free at 1-888-THE-DEFENSE (888-843-3333), or connect with us online for a free and confidential consultation.

In an online sexual predator sting that will likely go down in Florida history, 31 suspects have been arrested and are now facing the possible penalties of a sex crime conviction in Sarasota County. A group of undercover detectives in the county posed as minors on an online sex site, dutifully fulfilling their mission as part of Operation Intercept, a sting mission designed to catch and apprehend sex crime offenders in the state of Florida.

As the first of its kind, the Sarasota County sting operation included police officers from Venice, Manatee, North Port, and of course, Sarasota. State prosecutors were also said to be involved in the mission, as well as Homeland Security and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, all of which actively participated in the sting efforts to uncover those believed to be sex offenders in the state.

Officers that participated in the sting have stated that their behaviors included posing as young girls and boys – sometimes even the parents of minors, offering up their children for sexual acts – in order to unobtrusively converse with the defendants who unknowingly believed they were speaking to the same set of minors with whom they normally engaged. However, this was far from the case, and now suspects aged 22 to 62 are facing serious criminal charges that could cost them their future livelihoods.

As of now, officers are indicating that more arrests are still possible as some suspects never actually showed up to the scene of the crime as they were expected to. Already, the local sheriff’s office has initiated the forfeiture process of ceasing the vehicles of the suspects under question, and this is only the first of a whole host of other consequences that will likely be incurred by those convicted of charges for sex with a minor.

You too could be facing allegations of this nature if your behaviors are misinterpreted as sexually explicit in any way. Even if the sexual conduct in which you engaged was done so consensually, if it occurred between one adult and another minor then the act will be considered criminal in nature and punishable as such. Your best way to go about protecting yourself from the potential consequences of a conviction of this nature is to enlist the services of a criminal defense lawyer in Miami.

Under the direction of an experienced criminal attorney at Seltzer Law, PA you can get the aggressive help you need to effectively defend your case in or out of the court room. Available 24/7 to represent your needs, there is no better firm to help you in your legal endeavors than that of the Seltzer firm. Do not wait contact the firm today, toll-free, for more information about how you can be helped by an associate at the office.

Continue reading " Online Sexual Predator Sting Lands 30+ In Jail " »

As a Fort Lauderdale criminal defense lawyer, part of my job is to defend clients against abuses in the sentencing process as well as the criminal charges themselves. Criminal sentencing has gotten complicated, in part because of increasing numbers of laws created by political figures interested in looking “tough on crime” without care for the consequences of the laws. However, all defendants are entitled to due process of law and to generally have their rights respected by the courts – even when they have been found guilty. That’s why the Florida Supreme Court sent a case back for a new sentence in Dunbar v. State, in which the trial court forgot to orally pronounce a mandatory minimum sentence for Andre Isaiah Dunbar.

Dunbar, of Central Florida, was found guilty in 2009 of robbery with a firearm, grand theft and two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm. No details of the crime were included in the opinion, though the jury did find special circumstances that Dunbar actually possessed a firearm during the robbery and assault. At sentencing, the trial court orally pronounced a life sentence for the robbery charge. However, it failed to include the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence that is required for robbery with a firearm. The court added the mandatory minimum to its written sentencing order later, but Dunbar appealed, arguing that the mandatory minimum should be struck down because it didn’t match the oral sentence, creating two penalties for the same convictions. Dunbar appealed to the Fifth District, which declined to strike it down, finding the written sentence valid as a correction of the invalid oral sentence. For the same reason, it found no double jeopardy violation.

Because this conflicted with a 2010 decision from the Second District, the Florida Supreme Court took up the case. Ultimately, it approved of the Fifth District’s double reasoning on double jeopardy, but disagreed about the cure, sending the case back for resentencing. After noting that federal and Florida state double jeopardy protections are the same, the court outlined caselaw on corrected sentences and double jeopardy. It concluded that the imposition of a more severe corrected sentence does not violate double jeopardy unless it disrupts the defendant’s legitimate expectations of finality. In this case, Dunbar had no legitimate expectation of finality because trial courts have no discretion to vary from mandatory minimums – at least until the time to appeal has run out. However, the court agreed with Dunbar that he had a due process right to be present when the court increased the terms of his sentence. Thus, it upheld the Fifth District’s reasoning (and disapproved the Second), but remanded for resentencing with Dunbar present.

I appreciate the due process aspect of this decision, which at the very least should remind courts that defendants have the right to be present at sentencing. However, as a Miami robbery criminal defense attorney, I am less enthusiastic about the high court’s reasoning on double jeopardy. Though the result may conform to state and federal law, it may open some dangerous doors. For example, the Florida Supreme Court saw no distinction between an increase in a sentence following remand and an increase in a sentence that the court assumes on its own, as long as that’s done within the time required for an appeal. In order for a sentence to be increased on remand, of course, there must be an entire appeal, with all the due process and legal protections offered to parties on appeal. By contrast, a trial court acting on its own offers none of these. As a South Florida assault criminal defense lawyer, I believe criminal defendants’ rights should be protected and subject to court scrutiny just like everyone else’s.

Continue reading " Florida Supreme Court Sends Case Back for Resentencing Using Mandatory Minimum – Dunbar v. State " »

A bit more than a year ago, I wrote here as a cyber crime criminal defense attorney about an interesting appeals court case in Oregon. That state’s Supreme Court ultimately decided that merely viewing child pornography online is not a state crime; the viewer must save, print or pay for the file to be convicted of possessing it within the meaning of the law. This is true even when the computer automatically saves the files to the cache of the web browser, which keeps a copy of recently viewed material. That ruling stirred up controversy in Oregon, of course, where legislators have at least attempted to pass a bill criminalizing viewing the pornography. So I was extremely interested to see a similar ruling out of the New York State Court of Appeals in People v. Kent.

James D. Kent was a professor at Marist College in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., when he brought his computer in to the college’s tech support department for help with malfunctions. A student employee scanning for viruses found a folder full of sexually provocative pictures of underage girls. Kent told college administrators he didn’t know about the images, but the college turned over the hard drive to local police, who found even more sexually explicit child pornography in a separate folder; in the web browser’s cache; and in the “trash” space waiting to be overwritten. Kent was ultimately convicted of 134 counts of child pornography possession and two counts of promoting a sexual performance by a child, for procuring a website and a video. He was sentenced to one to three years in prison.

Kent’s appeal was first rejected by the trial court’s appellate division, which ruled in part that files stored in a cache are not sufficient by themselves to prove knowing possession or procurement. However, that court found the other circumstances sufficient to prove that Kent’s procurement was knowing.

He appealed again and had more luck with the New York State Court of Appeals, which reversed the convictions for certain files found in the computer’s cache. New York made child pornography promotion illegal in 1977, before the Internet changed how this material is usually distributed. That law makes it a crime to knowingly acquire child pornography for any purpose, but Kent argued that accessing and displaying the images does not meet the statute’s definition of procurement. If the defendant doesn’t know the files are being cached, the court wrote, he or she cannot knowingly acquire or possess them within the meaning of the law. In so ruling, the appeals court followed federal law and the laws of some states, which have held that to be convicted for cached images, defendants must be provably aware that the images would be cached. Viewing is also illegal under federal law, the court noted, but not under New York law. Thus, while it found Kent’s possession charges valid, it reversed as to the procurement charges and ruled that prosecutors must prove defendants know of the files in the cache to convict for possession.

As a child pornography criminal defense lawyer, I’m pleased to see this ruling. As with the Oregon case, this one appears to turn on the wording of the state law, which takes into account only possession, not transient viewing online. This is distinct from federal law and the laws of many other states, including Florida, where courts have expressly found that files in a cache are sufficient to support a possession charge. This split may be resolved by state legislators simply changing the law to permit a conviction for viewing, but as a child pornography possession defense attorney, I’d also be interested in seeing it resolved in the U.S. Supreme Court, if appropriate. Prosecutors undoubtedly hate the idea that defendants can go free on what they see as a technicality, but as New York and Oregon have recognized, the law does not permit convictions for things that were never actually criminalized.

Continue reading " New York State Appeals Court Rules Viewing Child Pornography Is Not Possessing It – People v. Kent " »

Defense of domestic violence charges is a common area of practice for south Florida criminal defense lawyers like me. Domestic violence charges can be especially troublesome because they often come with extra restrictions on the defendant’s movements and legal rights, including a court order to stay away from the accuser and, often, the defendant’s own home. And if the defendant was already in legal trouble or had a family court matter pending, he or she may face further penalties for a domestic violence conviction. That was the case in United States v. Johnson, in which defendant Jyrone Jeremiah Johnson of northern Florida challenged the termination of his supervised release after a conviction for “a single incident of extreme domestic violence.” The Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately upheld that decision.

Johnson was convicted of battering an unnamed woman over the course of several hours over an evening, in an incident that included stepping on her hair to hold her still while he punched her, then dragging her to a sink when she began to cough up blood. Among the physical evidence later found by probation officers were multiple bruises, the imprint of a tennis shoe on her chest and a potentially broken collarbone. After the assault, she sought permission to return to a halfway house where she had lived before receiving permission to live with Johnson. Johnson himself was called to a hearing to decide whether this incident justified revocation of his supervised release. He denied responsibility for the incident. The court ultimately decided that the supervised release should be revoked, which returned him to prison, saying it had no doubt that Johnson had violated the terms of his release.

Johnson appealed the revocation, but the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found no reason not to affirm the district court’s decisions. It noted that at the hearing, Johnson was represented by an attorney. Neither that attorney nor Johnson himself showed signs of failing to understand, or objecting to, the proceedings, the court said. In addition, the Eleventh said the district court’s ruling was clear, particularly given the simplicity of the issue presented to it. Applying reasoning from caselaw on revocation of probation, the court ruled that the district court met its requirement under the Constitution to give Johnson a written statement explaining the reasons for revoking his supervised release, including the evidence relied on. Thus, it upheld the district court’s decision.

As a Fort Lauderdale domestic violence defense attorney, I represent people who are fighting this kind of supervised release or probation revocation hearing, as well as those who are seeking probation or supervised release for the original conviction. It’s important for defendants to realize that the time they will serve after revocation is based on the original conviction, not on the offense for which the release or probation was revoked. Thus, something as minor as DUI or possession of drug paraphernalia is enough to land the defendant in prison for a substantial number of years, even though the offense itself may carry little or no jail time. That’s one reason why it’s vital for defendants to get the help of an experienced Miami probation violation defense lawyer as soon as possible after being accused of a violation that could lead to revocation.

Continue reading " North Florida Court Did Not Err in Ending Supervised Release for Domestic Violence – U.S. v. Johnson " »

As a child pornography possession defense attorney, I frequently tell my clients about their options on appeal. If you’ve never come into contact with the criminal justice system before, you might not know that appeals are requests to a higher court to review the decisions of a lower court, usually the court that heard a trial. Though appeals are often handled by different lawyers from those who handle trials, there are things attorneys can do at trial that lay the groundwork for a successful appeal. Trial attorneys can also give defendants their opinions about the chances of success on appeal, which may help defendants decide whether to pursue one. In United States v. Konczak, however, defendant Chad Konczak apparently disagreed with his court-appointed defense lawyer about whether there was any merit to his appeal of his child porn conviction.

Konczak was a student at a community college in Mattoon, Ill. when campus police officers caught him in the act of using library computers to download sexually explicit pictures of underage girls. He was arrested and ultimately pleaded guilty to charges of using an “Internet website” to view child pornography. He received a within-guidelines sentence of 45 months in prison, but then decided to appeal. His court-appointed attorney, who was not named in the decision, asked to withdraw from the case, saying all possible arguments Konczak could make on appeal would be frivolous. Konczak opposed the motion, and the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals took up the issue of whether the lawyer should be permitted to withdraw.

The court reviewed all possible arguments identified by the defendant’s and attorney’s briefs on appeal, starting with the legality of the guilty plea. It started by taking the attorney to task for failing to document whether the plea had been discussed with Konczak. Attorneys should not explore this kind of argument without discussing the issue with the client and ensuring that the client really wants to withdraw the guilty plea, the court said. However, the issue is moot, it went on to say, because it was satisfied from the record that no basis for a challenge exists — there was nothing in the transcript or the plea colloquy suggesting problems. The Seventh next agreed with the lawyer that the record showed no basis for a challenge to the sentence. A within-guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable, it said, and nothing in the record supports an exception. Konczak argued that the trial court failed to take into account that most of his Internet use was legal, but the appeals court noted that this doesn’t support an inference that the court confused legal and illegal images. Thus, it granted the attorney’s request to withdraw and dismissed the appeal.

This case illustrates a problem for criminal defendants like Konczak: It’s difficult to make a good argument on appeal without the help of an experienced attorney. Unless you have legal training, it’s easy to miss deadlines, get confused about the legal arguments or otherwise make mistakes that an experienced cyber crime criminal defense lawyer like me would not. While it’s unusual for a court-appointed lawyer to withdraw, plenty of defendants have the more common legal problem of not being able to afford an attorney. This is a shame, because sometimes, appeals conducted without a lawyer are lost for procedural reasons that have nothing to do with the merits of the case. My job as a child pornography criminal defense attorney includes understanding the process and procedures, so nothing stops the court from considering the strengths of the legal arguments.

Continue reading " Seventh Circuit Permits Court Appointed Lawyer to Withdraw From ‘Frivolous’ Appeal – U.S. v. Konczak " »

As a south Florida drug possession defense lawyer, I very frequently run across disputes over the legality of search warrants. Because possession alone is enough to create a conviction on drug charges, the case is generally unsustainable without evidence from a search. And if the search was illegal, the evidence from that search should be thrown out, thanks to long-standing civil rights laws. In United States v. Noriega, the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the trial court should have considered whether evidence from a potentially illegal search would have been uncovered anyway with a legal search warrant. Jose Noriega of Alabama was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, as well as conspiracy, after a search of his home and two associates’ homes turned up evidence of a growing operation. The appeals court sent the case back for more consideration before deciding whether to throw out the evidence.

An anonymous phone call to a drug task force in Mobile, Alabama, said there were growing operations on three properties in a community called 8 Mile. Officers got a search warrant for a property on Jib road and found a growing operation along with a surveillance system and a rifle. On the second property on Chutney Drive, they found Juan Sabino, whose car had been parked at the first property, along with Jose Noriega and Omar Huezo. Determining that the two properties were connected, and concerned that there might be someone armed inside who wished the police ill, officers swept the inside of the Chutney Drive house and found no threat or growing operation, although they found some growing equipment. They also smelled marijuana outside an outbuilding and called a judge to request an oral search warrant for the outbuilding. That building also had a growing operation, as did the third property.

Noriega and six others were charged with conspiracy to possess marijuana and possession with intent to distribute. Noriega moved to suppress the search of the Chutney Drive property, but the district court denied this, saying the search was lawful because “articulable facts” led the officers to fear for their safety. He was convicted and sentenced to 60 months plus the forfeiture of the property.

Noriega contended that the searches of both the home and the outbuilding should be thrown out as violating the Fourth Amendment, which would require courts to throw out the resulting evidence as tainted. The Eleventh Circuit ultimately decided it needed more information before it could decide whether the search was legal. While the Fourth Amendment does prohibit warrantless searches, the court said, it does permit “protective sweeps” like the one officers performed at Noriega’s home and outbuilding. And even if the protective sweep was not legal, the court said, the evidence may still be admitted if prosecutors can show that the evidence was discovered independent of the initial entry. In this case, the court said, the first step is to determine whether there was still probable cause to search Noreiga’s house and outbuilding. Considering the affidavit police submitted in support of their warrant, the appeals court found the controlling issue was whether the officers would have sought a search warrant even without sweeping the house. This is a fact that the district court should find, the Eleventh said, so it remanded the case for that determination before deciding Noriega’s appeal.

These Fourth Amendment questions are an important part of my work as a Miami-Dade narcotics defense attorney. Police are given wide leeway to search defendants’ homes and other areas if they feel threatened, but as the Eleventh noted, this has to be balanced against the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. Because police officers are often given more status than criminal defendants, courts don’t always make the right decision. That’s why it’s important for drug defendants to retain an experienced Fort Lauderdale criminal defense lawyer as early as possible in their cases. By challenging illegally obtained evidence, an experienced attorney may be able to stop prosecutions early, or at least preserve issues for appeal.

Continue reading " Eleventh Circuit Remands Marijuana Case for Reconsideration of Evidence Suppression – U.S. v. Noriega " »