If you’re just joining us, here’s a quick summary of the case: Recently, an Arizona Superior Court granted suppression of the Marijuana evidence that led to the State’s dismissal of the charges. The State promptly appealed arguing that the lower court erred in dismissing the Marijuana evidence found in the vehicle the suspect was driving. The state argued on Appeal that the detention of the suspect for 40 minutes while awaiting the drug K-9 unit was not unreasonable.

The Appeals Court agreed, and overturned the lower court’s ruling, based on totality of the circumstances at the time. The factors that the Appellate Court considered were the police officers extensive knowledge and experience in drug trafficking detection; prior drug crimes history of the suspect; voluntary statements made by the suspect at the time of the stop; and the suspect’s consent to search the vehicle he was driving.

In this discussion we focus on criminal rights at a stop, common defenses for drug crimes, laws, and drug trafficking penalties in Arizona.

Criminal Rights at a Police Stop

In the case study, the police used the suspect’s inconsistent statement about his destination to police which were used against him. The suspect also agreed to a search of his vehicle, which led to the discovery of the boxes of Marijuana in the trunk of his rental car.

Under the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution a person is afforded protection from self-incrimination. A person has the right to remain silent upon questioning by police, except to answer routine identification or procedural question during an investigative stop. But a suspect does not have to answer questions about where they were, or where they were going at an investigative stop.

At a police stop, a person has the right remain silent, including the right to refrain from answering questions about where we are going. A person also has the right to refuse a search of their vehicle. There are a few exceptions to this including police having a valid warrant, or what is known as exigent circumstances. A person has these rights under state and federal laws, whether the Miranda warning is read to them or not. It is critical to invoke these rights. Failure to do so may result in arrest and prosecution.

In this case, the statements offered by the suspect were seemingly innocent, and had nothing to do with the illegal drugs that were in the trunk of the vehicle. However, the officer testified that he found the suspect’s statements “perplexing” and “confusing”, which raised the officer’s suspicions of the suspect’s potential criminal activity.

Alone, the suspect’s statements may not have been sufficient to raise suspicion of criminal involvement. But the officer took into account other factors he observed, when he decided to further detain the suspect. So the seemingly innocent statements made by the suspect, were used by police against him in this case. When this happens it constitutes a form of self-incrimination.

Under the 4th Amendment, a person is protected against unlawful search and seizures. If a person consents to the search, the officer may search their vehicle without a valid search warrant. In this case the suspect consented to a search of the vehicle. But he refused to extend his consent to the contents of an unmarked, taped box in the trunk. At this point the police requested the K-9 unit to investigate the boxes with the suspicion that the boxes contained illegal drugs. It was the original consent however of the vehicle that led the discovery of the suspicious boxes in the trunk of the vehicle.

10 Common Drug Crimes Defenses

A number of defenses can be used to challenge drug charges. Which defenses your attorney uses to challenge the charges will be heavily based on the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. There are also, different types of defenses that made be used pre-trial or during trial. Below is a sample of 10 defenses commonly used by experienced drug crime defense lawyers:

Reason for the stop:

• Unlawful search and seizure rights;
• Violations of Miranda Rights;
• Unlawful detention;
• Police procedural violations;
• No probable cause for arrest;
• Other constitutional violations;
• The drugs belonged to someone else;
• Entrapment;
• The suspect was unaware that they were in possession of the drugs:

Note: It is not a valid defense for someone to be unaware of the laws in Arizona regarding the legality of Marijuana. But rather, it would be a valid defense if the accused was reasonably unaware that they possessed illegal drugs, or that the vehicle they are driving contained them.

5 Sentencing Diversion or Reduction Factors

If a person is found guilty or pleads guilty to a drug crime there are multiple factors the court takes into consideration. The general rules are that crimes involving repeat drug convictions, and higher quantities call for the most severe of penalties under the Arizona criminal justice system.

Below are some common alternatives that can be used to reduce the severity of penalties or help a defendant avoid incarceration:

• Successful completion of substance abuse program, (TASC) in place of incarceration for qualified first time offenders with no criminal history;
• Amount of illegal drugs involved was below the Statutory “Threshold Amount” or lower than the person had been originally accused of possessing;
• No weapons were involved No other aggravated circumstances were involved;
• No prior criminal records;
• Felony charges reclassified to allow which serve to reduce sentencing and penalties.

Arizona Marijuana Transportation Laws

In Arizona it is unlawful to possess, use, sell, transport or distribute Marijuana, outside of the scope of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA) A.R.S. 36 – Chapter 28.1 recreational use of Marijuana is not lawful in any form.

A person may be guilty of violating A.R.S. 13-3405 (A) (4) if they knowingly transport for sale, import into the state; offer to transport for sale, or import into this state; or transfer marijuana in Arizona.

Marijuana Trafficking Penalties

The penalties below apply to non-dangerous, non-violent, non-multiple, non-repetitive offenses:

If a person is found guilty of illegally transporting an amount of less than two pounds of Marijuana they will be convicted of a Class 3 felony. Penalties for this offense range from 2 years Mitigated to 8.75 years Aggravated; 3.5 Presumptive prison sentencing.

If a person is found guilty of illegally transporting a weight of two pounds, the Statutory Threshold Amount, under A.R.S. 13-3405 (C) or more of Marijuana, they will be convicted of a Class 2 felony. Penalties for this offense range from 3 years Mitigated to 12.5 years Aggravated; 5 years Presumptive prison sentencing; ineligible for probation.

Fines not less than $750.00 or three times the value of the marijuana whichever is greater up to $150,000 per charge per person or 1, 000,000 per charge per enterprise; other fines, fees, costs, and assessments; supervised probation or parole if eligible; Felony Criminal Record; Community Service or Restitution; Completion of Drug Rehabilitation or Substance Abuse Program; Loss of civil rights to vote and possess arms; Other penalties ordered by the court.

Felony Drug Defense Attorney

In Arizona, all Marijuana drug sales and trafficking convictions call for serious punishment. It is possible that a person convicted of drug sales or trafficking, could spend the the rest of their life in prison. If you face any felony drug charge, it is important that you consult an experienced felony drug defense attorney to discuss your options for defense.

James Novak, DUI & Criminal Defense Attorney is an experienced and highly skilled drug defense lawyer. As a former prosecutor he has a vast amount of litigation experience in drug charges. The Law Office of James Novak, PLLC is exclusively limited to DUI, and criminal defense. If retained, James Novak, Attorney will protect your rights, defend your charges, and work hard to resolve your case for the most favorable outcome possible. Some outcomes may include dismissal, reduction of charges and sentencing, avoidance of incarceration, and other mitigation in sentencing.

James Novak provides a free initial consultation for active charges, in Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, and Scottsdale Arizona. You can call by phone or send a contact form thought the website to get a return call to confidentially discuss your matter and defense options.

“You have the right remain silent, and refrain from answering questions about where you are going. You also have the right to refuse a search of your vehicle, in absence of a valid search warrant. You have these rights whether they are read to you or not”.

Additional Resources:

• Arizona Court of Appeals Division One
• Illegal Drug Trafficking and Sales Laws Arizona
• Arizona Criminal Sentencing Guidelines 2014 – 2015
• Arizona Medical Marijuana Laws

Related Articles

• Appellate Court Ruling Part I of II – Case Study
• Arizona Marijuana Mandatory Minimums
• How Police Decide to Make an Arrest in Marijuana Charges

You might remember the viral video of an Arizona man, 22 year old Matthew Cordle, who caused a fatal drunk driving accident. He provided a confession in a four-minute online video that went viral with 2.3 million views last September.

Cordle began his chilling confession with “My name is Matthew Cordle and on June 22, 2013, I hit and killed Vincent Canzani. This video will act as my confession.”

Vincent Canzani 61, was the father of two daughters, and a former USA Naval Submarine Veteran. He was pronounced dead at the scene of the accident.

Immediately following the crash, Cordle was taken to the hospital for his injuries. But at that time he denied being intoxicated, driving impaired, or causing the fatal accident.

Cordle confessed in the video, that he was driving the wrong way on an interstate, and crashed into Vincent Canzani vehicle.

In the video was the blurred face of man, Cordle, admitting to barhopping, blacking out and driving home drunk. Cordle explained that he had been drinking heavily before getting behind the wheel, and blacked out just before losing control of his vehicle.

Cordle had not yet been charged at the time the video was made, but was expecting the charges to be brought based on the DUI blood test results.

Interestingly, Cordle had retained an attorney, but his attorney claimed he was not aware that his client had planned to post a video confession on the internet.

The DUI test results revealed that Cordle had been driving with a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of 0.191 percent. In Arizona, BAC of .015 to .019 DUI would be in violation of the Extreme DUI laws.

Cordle faced the State’s maximum sentence in the charges of 8 1/2 years in prison for aggravated vehicular homicide and an operating under the influence (OUI).

Cordle said the reason he made the video was to encourage people not to drink and drive. In it he claimed that he understood that the video was a confession that would provide prosecutors with necessary ammunition against him to get a conviction.

Following the video confession, Cordle was formally charged. But at the arraignment, the suspect pled “not-guilty”. Entering a plea of “not-guilty” invokes a suspects right to defend their charges and retain legal representation.

However, the initial “not guilty plea” did not sit well with the presiding judge. She expected Cordle to plead guilty since he already confessed to the crime. The judge claimed she was “incensed” that Cordle did not plead guilty – claiming that a not-guilty plea at this point, in her opinion was a display that the defendant was not “forthright”.

Apparently, Cordle’s defense attorney pled guilty on his client’s behalf, largely due to the fact that under Ohio law, entering a guilty plea locks in the judge. Cordle’s defense attorney was concerned as to how this particular judge would sentence the defendant. He wanted to make sure his client received fair treatment and rather than a sentence influenced by the media or public outcry, as a result of the unfavorable response from the public, social media, and news media coverage. The judge then set Cordle’s bond at $225,000.

In October 2013, Cordle reversed his plea to guilty for charges of aggravated vehicular homicide and operating a vehicle while impaired. He was convicted and sentenced to 6 1/2 years in prison; lifetime driver’s license suspension; and a fine of $1075.00, according to reports.

Cordle claimed his confession was intended with good cause to help others. At the end of the video, he extended a heartfelt and remorseful plea, warning motorists not to drink and drive.

At sentencing, Cordle was met with unexpected mercy by the family of the victim. The victim’s former wife read a letter at Cordle’s sentencing hearing. She requested on behalf of the family that the judge extend leniency in punishment to be imposed. She believed that because of the type of man the victim was, he would not have wanted the defendant to get the maximum punishment. This plea by family likely served to impact the judge’s decision not to impose maximum sentencing, considering the sentence was two years short of the maximum allowable for the charges.

The survivor’s unexpected plea to the judge for leniency in sentencing following the loss of their loved one caused by a drunk driver was compelling to say the least. It was a rare and and exceptional response from a family who lost a loved one whose life was ended by a drunk driver. One few defendants would be afforded under similar circumstances.

A wrongful death of a loved one in and of itself is enough to harden the hearts of their families. But for many, there is no worse aggravation of pain and suffering than to learn that the wrongdoer has posted public social media messages, videos, or photos, about the wrongful death or serious injury, or to boast about their involvement in the crime.

Law Enforcement’s Use of Social Media in Criminal Investigations

The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and Police Agencies have long recognized the benefits of using social media and the internet to derive evidence in criminal investigations.

In the “2013 Social Media Survey” conducted by the International Police Chief’s Association it was revealed that 96 percent of law enforcement agencies surveyed were using social media to investigate crimes. Below are some additional findings from that study:

• 500 police agencies representing 48 states reported using social media as an integral tool for criminal investigations.

• 81 percent of agencies said the most common use of social media was for criminal investigations;

• 80 percent of agencies reported that social media helped solve the crimes in their investigations;

• 69 percent of agencies surveyed had social media policies and 14 percent were in the process of crafting policies;

• 92 percent of the investigations were conducted using Facebook;

• At the time of this survey the top three Social Media outlets used to investigate crimes were Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube. The internet as become a staple in criminal investigations. Police and prosecutors often scour social media accounts and the internet as part of a criminal investigation. There is potential for not only law enforcement officials to learn about criminal involvement, but also for other users to report it to them.

Freely commenting or sharing information about about your drinking and driving behaviors, or involvement in a crime, will usually result in a swift arrest and prosecution of the offense; just what the state and prosecution needs to convict a suspect.

The 5th Amendment of the US Constitution affords persons protection against self-incrimination. States also provide such protections under their own laws and constitution.

To freely post comments or media about a criminal incident for which a person has been involved, outside of, or against the advice from their criminal defense attorney, will jeopardize their case, and their rights in this regard.

Why Do People Post about their Crimes on Social Media?

Dr. Pamela Rutledge, Director of the Media Psychology Research Center (MPRC) , a non-profit organization that examines all aspects of human experience on social media, and it’s impacts on society. She recently commented in a CNN article on this very subject. She explained there are number of reasons people post about their criminal involvement on Social Media. But in most cases the person posting is looking for a way to feel important. She explained that sadly this need for “bravado” often over powers the concern of being caught.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation reported on similar findings in a recent article entitled “Social Media and Law Enforcement”. They wrote “The structure of social media encourages self-promotion. It offers easy access to an unlimited pool of potential “friends.” Individuals who crave validation can achieve a feeling of connection not available in their offline lives. People who have a desire for attention, notoriety, or fame are attracted to it. To get noticed, they often post entertaining or provocative information…Constraints do not exist for social media”.

Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus and other social media outlets, have become an inherent part of people’s lives and work. Its natural for them to speak their mind. Its second nature to post about anything and everything. But once content or media is posted onto an internet website, or social media forum, it becomes “fair game” to use as evidence against the suspects. User’s comments, videos and photos posted or shared that relate to their involvement in a crime is one of the strongest forms of evidence the police and prosecution can use against a suspect. In essence, a person completes the investigation for the prosecution, in what is considered to be one of the strongest forms of evidence that can be used against them.

Electronic communications on the internet, social media, texting or E-mail are just a few of many ways people implicate themselves in DUI charges and other crimes. Another common place where self-incrimination occurs is at a DUI stop.

If you are stopped for suspected drunk driving in Arizona it is important to resist any temptation you might feel about talking to police, and sharing your side of the story. This generally backfires on a suspect. Unfortunately, your openness, and forthright will not generally defuse your problems. But they will often result in arrest and prosecution.

A confession or admission like the public, like the tragic one described above, can severely jeopardize your criminal defense case in court. The statements you give to the police at the DUI stop, and while being detained can be used as evidence against you.

You may also think because you’re drunk, what you say doesn’t matter or that your attorney can later make an argument that your confession was involuntary. In Arizona, a confession is involuntary if a defendant’s will was overcome under the totality of the circumstances. If the State wants to show the confession was made voluntarily and get it admitted into evidence, the State will put an officer on the stand to testify that the confession was made without threat or coercion or promises of immunity.

Even extreme intoxication does not by itself render a confession involuntary in Arizona, as discussed in the case State v. Londo. In that case, a defendant appealed his conviction for narcotics drug sales or transfers claiming that his admission or confession about swallowing crack cocaine was obtained involuntarily and in violation of his right to remain silent. The court ruled that extreme intoxication could be a relevant circumstance but was not enough on its own to get a confession or admission suppressed altogether.

The Fifth Amendment protects your right to remain silent–this silence cannot be held against you. You should not pick and choose which questions you answer, or a negative inference may be raised with respect to the questions you choose not to answer. A blanket refusal to answer questions will work better. Since you also have right to an attorney and the right to a defense, if you are stopped for drunk driving, you can refuse to answer questions and request access to your attorney.

10 Ways to Protect Yourself from Self-Incrimination

1. Invoke your right to remain silent, even if your “Miranda warning” has not been read to you;
2. Refrain from posting comments, videos, or any other communications on any social accounts or platforms;
3. Refrain from texting, or discussing the matter with family and friends;
4. If the police contact you for questioning about your alleged involvement in a crime, politely and respectfully decline to comment;
5. Refrain from casual comments with police or authorities, and respectfully ask if you are “free to leave” if you are not being arrested;
6. Refrain from answering questions at a DUI stop about where you’re going, where you’ve been, what you’ve have had to drink or eat, or any medications you’ve taken;
7. Refrain from testifying, or providing any testimony verbal, or written, in absence proper criminal defense representation;
8. Know your rights in order to protect yourself from unlawful search and seizures;
9. If you are a bystander, or witness, of someone else’s arrest, remain quiet, and do not intervene;
10. Consult a criminal defense attorney who serves the city where the alleged crime occurred as soon as possible to discuss your concerns, and defense options.

How to invoke your Right to Remain Silent

Keep in mind that the right to remain silent exists even if you are not under arrest. However, it is not enough to remain silent without invoking your right. To invoke this right, you must either state verbally or in writing that you wish to remain silent. If you fail invoke your right, and simply remain silent, you will be seen as being uncooperative.

Criminal Defense for DUI and Crimes in Phoenix AZ

The relationship you have with your DUI attorney makes it possible to be open and forthright about anything related to the alleged crime, but you should not talk about the case to any other people or make any admissions to them.

If you are arrested, have receive criminal or DUI charges, or there is an outstanding warrant for your arrest, you should consult an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible to discuss your matter and defense options If retained, they will protect your rights and provide an effective defense on your behalf. This will increase your chances of being treated fairly, and obtaining more favorable outcome in your case.

If you are under formal investigation for a serious crime, you also have the option of retaining criminal defense protection. This is known as pre-charge or pre-indictment representation.

Pre-charge representation can sometimes lead to charges not being brought, alternative resolutions to the matter, an additional wall of protection to prevent the suspect from self-incrimination; assures your rights are protected, provide self-surrendering assistance to avoid arrest; enables your attorney to be present in the event you are required to undergo questioning or interrogation; and a host of other criminal defense pretrial benefits.

Contact The Law Office of James Novak at 480-413-1499 for a free consultation, if you face DUI charges in Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert and Scottsdale, AZ.

Additional Resources:

• Drug DUI and Super Extreme DUI laws
• Arizona 2012 Statewide DUI Enforcement Statistics
• Mothers Against Drunk Driving
• International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Social Media Survey Results
• Medial Psychology Research Center
• FBI – Social Media and Law Enforcement

More Blogs

• Felony DUI Laws and Penalties in Arizona, Phoenix DUI Lawyer Blog, July 1, 2013
• Arizona Supreme Court: DUI Partition Ratios Evidence Admissible, Phoenix DUI Lawyer Blog, August 27, 2012

Privacy rights were outweighed by law enforcement interests in the United States Supreme Court’s June 3rd ruling in Maryland v. King. In this case, the Court was divided 5-4 over the question of DNA sample collection. All states and the federal government require convicted felons to submit DNA samples to law enforcement. But this was the first case to look at whether even those who are merely arrested (and assumed innocent until proven guilty) can be required to submit their DNA to law enforcement.

The Supreme Court ruled that states may–without a warrant– routinely collect DNA samples from people arrested for a “serious crime.” This was a highly anticipated ruling because it is the Court’s first on the privacy of genetic information. The ruling focused on Maryland’s law, which requires DNA sampling of those arrested for serious crimes, supposedly for the purpose of identifying them. However, the case’s language was so broad that it opened the floodgates for all states to permit DNA sampling of people arrested, even if they are arrested only on a minor charge.

The case arose from a criminal defendant’s appeal after he was convicted for a felony only because the Maryland police were able to match his DNA in a federal database. After the defendant was arrested for assault, the police swabbed the defendant’s cheek to get a DNA sample and they submitted the sample to a federal DNA database. The swab was not necessary to prove the assault.

The federal database to which the sample was submitted matched the defendant’s DNA to DNA collected from a crime scene six years earlier. Because of the routine cheek swab, the defendant was convicted of the earlier serious crime.

The Maryland Court of Appeals threw out the defendant’s conviction on the grounds that a cheek swab violated Fourth Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure. Usually the State must obtain a warrant if it wants to conduct any kind of invasive physical testing. The State appealed the appellate ruling.

The Supreme Court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, compared DNA sampling of the arrested to fingerprinting which is legal. The Court overturned the Court of Appeals. Justice Kennedy wrote that states could collect DNA from people arrested for “serious offenses.”

The majority opinion reasoned that Maryland’s law supported the well-established and legitimate governmental interest of identifying people in custody as opposed to solving crimes. The majority also reasoned that a cheek swab is minimally intrusive from a physical perspective.

Justice Scalia, joined by three liberal justices, wrote the dissent. He warned, “As an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.”

This ruling impacts all people in states that authorize DNA testing, including Arizona. At present, Arizona’s law enforcement is able to collect DNA from anyone imprisoned for a felony offense, including those on probation. However, Arizona has also passed legislation to allow for the collection of DNA from those who are merely arrested, not convicted, of a serious crime.

This group includes those who are arrested for certain sexual offenses, burglary, prostitution, and other serious, violent or aggravated offenses. Although this group represents a relatively narrow number of criminal defendants now, as Justice Scalia pointed out the Supreme Court’s ruling is broad enough that states could widen the net of people who are required to submit to DNA sampling. As Justice Scalia suggests, in the future, DNA sampling may be part of police booking procedure even in traffic cases.

Additional Resources

DNA Laws Database Mesa Police Department Mesa Municipal Court

If you are arrested, your future may depend on hiring an experienced and knowledgeable criminal defense attorney. Contact the Law Offices of James Novak at (480) 413-1499.

MORE BLOGS

Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Law Stands Ground, Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney Blog, June 4, 2013 Marijuana DUI: The Impact of Montgomery V. Harris in Arizona, Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney Blog, March 13, 2013

Most people know they have a Fifth Amendment right not to be forced to incriminate oneself. This right encompasses not only the right not to speak about something that might lead you to actually admit to wrongdoing, but also the right to not have the court infer that your silence is itself an admission of guilt.

No substantial penalties can be imposed as a result of exercising your Fifth Amendment right. Moreover, if a defendant chooses to remain silent during sentencing, his silence is not to be taken as either an admission or a lack of contrition. However, if a defendant chooses to express remorse during sentencing, his statement can be used by the sentencing judge as a mitigating factor–a reason to be more lenient.

In an appellate case heard earlier this year, the rule against self-incrimination was applied to the issue of how a defendant’s silence can affect sentencing. In that case, the defendant (a woman) was on trial for major felony charges and was convicted.

Before sentencing, the trial judge said he would not put her on probation because the probation officer had reported she would not make statements about her offense during the investigation. Therefore, the probation officer had concluded she would not be able to participate in any counseling or treatment diversion program which required frank communication.

The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court had improperly sentenced her to a two-year prison term instead of placing her on probation or suspending the sentence. In her view, the prison term violated her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because it punished her refusing to talk about the details of her case with a probation officer.

The appellate court explained that in this case the defendant was neither entitled to probation nor to have her sentence suspended. Probation was a sentencing alternative, rather than a right. These were matters over which the trial court had discretion. Appellate courts give deference to the trial judge’s opinion about what seems necessary to rehabilitate a defendant.

The appellate court reasoned that a sentencing court was not prevented from considering a defendant’s silence regarding the offense in determining whether he or she could be rehabilitated through probation. In this case, the trial court had grounded its assessment in the probation officer’s report as to her unwillingness to talk about the offense even for purposes of rehabilitation.

The appellate court found that the sentence imposed was among those available by statute and therefore could not be considered a “substantial penalty” for silence or exercise of a Fifth Amendment right. The defendant in the instant case had relied on a Fifth Amendment case. In that case, a probationer was not required to answer certain polygraph questions because the court ruled he was entitled to assert the Fifth Amendment with respect to questions that could implicate him in future criminal matters.

The court reasoned that even a probationer would be required to answer questions relating to a past offense for which he was given probation. The defendant had refused to answer questions and had not intimated they might incriminate her in future criminal proceedings.

Additional Resources

Arizona Sentencing Chart Maricopa County Criminal Procedures

Constitutional issues like the one described above often arise in criminal defense cases, including DUIs, drug possession, and violent crimes. If you are accused of a crime, in Phoenix AZ, contact the experienced criminal defense attorneys of the Law Offices of James Novak at 480-413-1499 to fight the charges.

More Blogs

Defenses for Disorderly Conduct Charges in Arizona, Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney Blog, March 11, 2013 Drowsy Driving v. DUI Charges: Facts, Prevention and Criminal Defense, Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney Blog, March 28, 2013

On October 9, 2012, the Superior Court Judge in Maricopa County denied Michael Lee Crane’s request to represent himself at trial. Crane is accused three violent robberies and homicides in the Phoenix, AZ. The defendant claimed the reason he wanted to represent himself was because no one knew his case better than he did. But the reason for the Judge’s denial had little to do with knowledge of the case.

But rather, Crane had persistently been disruptive; refused follow or recognize governing authority and law; refused to answer questions; refused to follow substantiated law; refused to comply with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and Code; and deliberate engaged in serious and obstructionist misconduct The Judge explained that Crane needed to be able to understand, and follow these rules and follow the Arizona and US constitution. The Judge explained that by not knowing and following these laws and procedures, the defendant did not realize the limits he would place on his defense. But more importantly, his request was denied on the basis that the request for self-representation was not “knowingly” made.

Analysis of Ruling

The Sixth Amendment of the constitution affords a person the right to counsel or the right to defend themselves. And while it is unwise, the court must respect a person’s right to refuse attorney representation, even if it to the detriment of the person’s defense. For this reason, the Judge did take the defendant’s request under advisement. However, the decision is still ultimately at the judge’s discretion.

In this Ruling the Judge recognized the right of a person to defend themselves and refuse counsel. However, he explained that this right has limits. The court cited numerous important rulings to refuse to the defendant his request for self-representation:

• A defendant who is persistently disruptive of orderly procedures may lose their right to self-representation U.S. v. Williams 2011; State v Brooks 1989; Smith v State 1998; Wilson v. state 2004; Coleman v. State, 1980;
• Repeatedly arguing with the court on issues that were already ruled on, may be cause for forfeiture of the right to self-representation State v. Hemenway, 2004;
• Self-representation must be balanced against the government’s right to a fair trial which requires it to be conducted in a judicious and orderly forum State v. Henry, 1997;
• A trial court has broad discretion in managing the conduct of a trial, and has a duty to properly exercise that discretion State v. Cornell, 1994;
• Even if found competent to waive counsel, and stand trial, the court still has discretion to deny self-representation requests if it believes that the defendant’s request was not made knowingly.

Criminal Defense Attorney Mesa, AZ

If you face criminal charges, especially if they are serious, you should always consider retaining a qualified criminal defense attorney to represent you. They will defend your charges, and make sure your rights are protected. They will represent you through all stages of a criminal case; be capable of mounting a defense on your behalf; and worked towards obtaining the best possible resolution to your charges.

Additional Resources:

• State of Arizona v. Michael Crane

• Arizona Judicial Branch – Rules of Criminal Procedure

• Arizona Superior Court – Case Procedures more If you “Like” this article please let us know with a +1! Feel Free to subscribe and “Share”!

Law Office of James Novak 4500 S. Lakeshore Drive Tempe AZ 85282 (480) 413-1499 Free Consultation!

www.Arizonacriminaldefenselawyer.com www.novakazlaw.com Arizona DUI & Criminal Defense Serving Tempe, Phoenix,Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Scottsdale, AZ Maricopa County