Bob McDonald Appointed to Nassau County Redistricting Panel
Posted on May 10, 2012
Filed Under CMG In the News | Leave a Comment
As reported in Tuesday’s New York Law Journal, CMG Partner Bob McDonald has been appointed by Nassau County Democrats to serve on the county’s redistricting commission. McDonald, one of two attorneys that Nassau County Democrats have tapped for the panel, is First Vice Chair of the Nassau County Democratic Committee – and has been a longtime leader in the Democratic party here on Long Island.
Five appointees have been named to the panel – created as county lawmakers prepare to redraw legislative lines in conjunction with the upcoming 2013 elections. Being appointed to the panel will enable Bob to continue to maintain his strong presence in the local political arena – and provides an opportunity for him to continue to offer his insight and expertise in local politics and the issue of redistricting.
We congratulate Bob on being appointed to the commission, and will continue to update you on developments from the panel.
To read the coverage of Bob’s appointment to the Nassau Redistricting Panel in the New York Law Journal, click here.
QUESTIONING OF SUSPECTS COMES UNDER FIRE IN QUEENS: Queens DA’s Program of Interviewing Suspects Deemed “Misleading and Deceptive” – and a Ruling Considered a Major Victory in Protecting the Rights of Defendants
Posted on May 10, 2012
Filed Under Constitutional Rights, Criminal Defense | Leave a Comment
On April 16th, a major victory was won for criminal defendants in Queens – and perhaps across the country – when Acting Supreme Court Justice Joel Blumenfeld admonished the Queens District Attorney’s Office for an Ethical Violation of the Code of Professional Conduct for the manner in which their office was interviewing defendants prior to their arraignment in Criminal Court. The Perez decision (cite: http://www.nylj.com/nylawyer/adgifs/decisions/041812blumenfeld.pdf) was an important ruling that not only protects criminal defendants and their right to be free from coercive government questioning, but goes a long way to protect a defendants Constitutional Rights against self-incrimination.
This groundbreaking case and important decision centered on the Queens DA’s Office policy of taking defendants out of their holding cells prior to arraignment and, most importantly, prior to their chance to speak with an attorney – and reading them a preamble script prior to advising them of their Miranda rights … and thereafter talking to defendants about the incident if they agreed.
The World – and the Legal Profession – Waits and Watches in the Trayvon Martin Case
Posted on April 24, 2012
Filed Under Criminal Defense, Hot Topics | Leave a Comment
For the better part of the last seven weeks, America has been riveted by the tragic death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17 year old African-American male, gunned down in Sanford, Florida, by “neighborhood watchman” George Zimmerman. Trayvon’s death and the circumstances surrounding the shooting has led to countless marches supporting Trayvon’s family; heated debate regarding racial tensions and gun control; public figures wearing hoodies in support of Trayvon; and the President of the United States making a personal comment on the case.
Last week Special Prosecutor Angela Corey (the prosecutor appointed to the case after the local prosecutor and police chief inexplicably stepped aside) formally charged George Zimmerman with Second Degree Murder. Much was made of Ms. Corey’s decision to charge Zimmerman in the manner she did, avoiding a Florida grand jury and choosing not to charge Murder in the First Degree or, in the alternative, lesser included charges such as Manslaughter. Ms. Corey made this decision based on the investigation by police officers, detectives and investigators from the State and Federal Government. Now Trayvon’s parents and friends along with supporters for George Zimmerman will wait for the trial of Zimmerman to begin. On a larger scale, the nation awaits for issues such as gun control and race relations and hoodies and Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” (hereinafter SYG) law to take center stage in the trial of a cop buff who gunned down an unarmed 17 year old kid.
What Happens When Lawyers Fail to Tell Clients About Plea Offers?
Posted on April 23, 2012
Filed Under Constitutional Rights, Criminal Defense | 1 Comment
The U.S. Supreme Court recently examined the Right to Counsel regarding guilty pleas, deciding two criminal cases in which clients may have suffered because of the ineffective and deficient performances of their lawyers.
Statistics clearly show that most criminal cases are resolved not by trials, but by negotiated pleas – in fact, 97 percent of federal convictions and 94 percent of state convictions are the result of guilty pleas. It is not uncommon in many courts for a prosecutor to offer a deal with reduced charges or a lesser sentence in order to inexpediently resolve a case in a fair way. But what happens if the prosecutor tells the lawyer about a deal being offered, but the lawyer neglects to tell the client?
In the case of Missouri v Frye, No. 10-444 (3/21/2012)(http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-444.pdf), the Court held that clients in criminal cases have a right to effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations. The client was charged with driving with a revoked license, as a felony because he had been convicted of the same offense three times before. The prosecutor sent a letter to the client’s lawyer offering to resolve the case with a guilty plea to a misdemeanor and 90 days in jail instead of to the felony. But the lawyer failed to tell the client about it. The offer expired, and the client later accepted an open plea to a felony – never knowing about the earlier offer! He was sentenced to three years in prison, and appealed.
A Downside of Today’s Technology: With The Alleged Victim Not Pressing Charges, the Case of Former NFL Cheerleader Sarah Jones Brings Electronic Evidence into the Spotlight
Posted on April 11, 2012
Filed Under Criminal Defense, General Law, Hot Topics | 1 Comment
When former Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader and Kentucky high school teacher Sarah Jones pled not guilty last week to charges of first degree sexual abuse of a minor, there was one important difference in the courtroom. Instead of pressing charges against Jones, the 16 year old boy and his family appeared in court at her arraignment – coming out in support of Jones and stating that they do not want to see her prosecuted.
Perhaps surprisingly, the prosecutor’s office has decided to move forward with this case – despite their most important witness siding with the defense. In fact, the prosecutor has all but gone on the record and said that they don’t need the alleged victim because the forensic evidence – in this case solely electronic evidence in the form of emails, texts and social media – is good enough to get the conviction they want.
The question remains: can the prosecution still get the conviction in this case, even without any witnesses? The answer lies in the strength of this electronic evidence – and the whole world will be watching to see how this new type of forensic evidence will play out in the courtroom.
keep looking »
Connect
________________
