If you punched someone in the face 12 times, the law considers that 1 assault.
If you steal 12 items from someone’s house, the law considers that 1 burglary.
What about a drive-by shooting where 12 shots were fired at a house? Is that 1 crime or 12?
In my client’s case, the State argued it was 12 separate crimes. Why? Because then they’re able to throw the book at someone and show that they’re tough on crime.
But in Utah, that’s not how it works. Where there is “one intention, one general impulse, and one plan, even though there is a series of transactions, there is but one offense.” (State v. Irvin, 2007 UT App 319, ¶ 18, 169 P.3d 798.) That’s the law. It’s called merger.
Today, we argued this doctrine before the court. Some people would call this a “technicality,” I call it the law. Fortunately, so did the judge. The court reduced my client’s maximum potential sentence by 55 years. I call that a win.
Yesterday, Midvale charged my client with a nonexistent crime. It formally charged my client with “refusing to submit to a chemical test.” The problem is, that’s not a crime.
In Utah, if you refuse a chemical test (breathalyzer, blood, or urine test—NOT Field Sobriety Tests, you can refuse those) the Driver’s License Division can suspend your license. Yet there’s no criminal penalty; no fine, no jail time. Don’t believe me? Check it out yourself by reading the law.
Amazingly enough, that doesn’t prevent the government from charging you with a crime. And unfortunately, my client had to spend money by retaining me to defend against a nonexistent crime.
“To… not prepare is the greatest of crimes; to be prepared beforehand for any contingency is the greatest of virtues” – Sun Tzu
People ask me what to look for in an attorney. Whether it’s family law, litigation, or a criminal case, I always say the same thing: Look for someone who prepares.
How do you know if someone prepares? Easy, ask. But you need to ask the right question. If you ask, “Do you prepare for trial?” every attorney will say “yes.” A more telling question is “What did you do to make sure you would win your last trial?”
You should hear something like, “I interviewed my client and reviewed documents so I would be familiar with the facts of the case.” Or “After I understood the facts, I looked for legal areas we could exploit and I filed several pre-trial motions.”
Preparation is the key to winning. Everything else is just luck.
Yesterday, Google released it’s legal research arm of Google Scholar to the public. This allows everyday people to aid in their criminal defense by researching case precedent; the key factor which instructs attorneys and courts on legal issues.
Courts decide criminal law issues by examining your case and comparing it to rulings in earlier cases with similar facts. These authoritative—or precedential—cases are what form our legal system.
For example: The police violate your constitution rights by searching your car after they place you in handcuffs. As a criminal defense attorney, I (and the courts) know this because in Arizona v. Gant, the United States Supreme Court said that police violated Mr. Gant’s rights when they searched his car after he was in handcuffs; that decision suppressed cocaine and a gun from being entered into evidence. Invaluable information for criminal defense attorneys and their clients alike.
Now that Google has released this tool to the public, everyone will have basic access to what defense attorneys pay hundreds of dollars per month for; Court decisions in an electronic, searchable format. Importantly, you can specify which jurisdictions you’d like to search, such as Utah cases only.
Remember, Google Scholar is a beta product and isn’t perfect. Already lawyers around the web are discussing how Scholar has glitches. Still, if you have any interest in researching your criminal law issues, as of now, this is the place to start.
