While the two cases under review, Missouri v. Frye and Lafler v. Cooper, were somewhat different in the facts presented, the result is that in handling a plea, whether it is accepted or rejected and the case goes on to trial, the attorney has duties he has to perform. The criminal attorney must present all plea offers to the client and fully explain both the consequences of the plea, if accepted, and the consequences to the client if the plea is not accepted.

Often, I believe that the full consequences of a plea are not explained to the client because the criminal attorney is really not committed to trying the case. The attorney may omit necessary consequences in order to get the client to take the attorney’s easy way out and accept the plea bargin. Such an outcome is not always in the best interest of the client, although it is often to the advantage of the client’s attorney.

No one knows for sure what the ultimate outcome of the U.S Supreme Court’s holdings in these case will be. However, you can bet that it will represent some new hope to any client who feels they have been convicted more through the inaction or coercion of their defense attorney, rather than to overwhelming fact of their guilt. Certainly, a client in such a situation should consult with criminal attorney to see what options exist.

If you would like to know how these new rulings might effect you, please contact Americas’s Criminal Defense Group at (866) 479-0130 for a FREE legal conultation with Anthony Partipilo, Managing Director/Attorney of the law firm.

A prefile defense case is all about timing and positioning. It is only effective, in most cases, if the client immediately retains a criminal lawyer upon discovery of the accusations or investigation. By definition if the case has progressed to a charge, the prefile opportunity is forever lost.

What a criminal attorney attempts to do in a prefile defense can take a number of different forms. Among these forms would be: stopping the client from talking with the police or to anybody about the case, identifying witnesses and defense theories about the case, and checking facts and witnesses relied upon by the accusor or investigator in support of their case. Lastly, the attorney wants to inform the other side that any case arising will be vigoriously defended against.

All of these acts are done in an effort to make the prosecutors/investigators really look at their case from a standpoint of advocacy rather than as absolute facts in laid down case. One of the biggest problems in fighting all criminal cases is getting the prosecution to really look at the case and to acknowledge the problems they find.

This is why a prefile defense is so important, because if the defense attorney can get the prosecutors/investigators to look at your case before they have invested in prosecuting the case, there is an excellant opportunity to get the charges reduced or even obtain a no filing in the case. Often cases go forward or not on the thinest of margins. If a criminal defense attorney can influence a prosecutor at this stage of the proceeding, they have done a terrific job. We know because we have done it many times in the past.

If you are under investigation or have been accused of a crime, call 866-479-0130 for a free legal consultation with an experienced criminal attorney. Paying for a prefile defense can be the best money ever spent.

Anthony Partipilo is the Managing Director/Attorney for America’s Criminal Defense Group. Call 866-479-0130 to schedule a free legal consultation with Mr. Partipilo.

Now as to the Sandusky interview I do not have enough specific facts to know where his defense attorney is going with this, so I will not comment on it at this time. I would only say that I hope the criminal defense attroney has an overall defense plan that this interview will further, or it was a terrible idea.

Let me show you through some examples why talking is a bad idea:

Example 1. Person A, the victim, alleges that they confronted person B in the lunch room at work at 12:30 about a prior date rape by B. Person A says that B admitted the rape during their meeting. When B is confronted by the police, B “talks” and admits having met in the lunch room but denies admitting to the rape of A.

Example 2, Person A, the victim, alleges they confronted person B in the lunch room at 12:30 about a prior date rape by B. Person A alleges that B admitted to the rape. When inteviewed by the police, B declines to “talk” on the advice of his attorney.

During the subsequent investigation by B’s criminal attorney, it is discovered that person C was eating in the lunch room from 12:00 to 1:00 and stated that no meeting occured there between A and B.

In Example 1, the fact of C’s testimony would have some weight but the admission of the meeting by B would probably outweigh the mistake as to place. The prosecution would probably be able to overcome this oversight and convict B of the crime.

In Example 2, the outcome would most likely be different. Person C’s testimony is that the meeting did not take place as alledged. B has not admitted the conversation took place and cannot be compelled to testify because of his 5th amendment rights. In this scenario, the prosecutor has a far more difficult task. The prosecutor most prove first that the conversation did happen and then prove the substance of the conversation.

In Example 2, the main battle is between C and A, and C is an independent witness. Why would C lie or maybe A is mistaken as to place and time or maybe A is just lying. The majority of the pressure is on A and the prosecution. In Example 1, the fight is between A and B with the issue being who is lying, as the existence of the meeting has been admitted by B. The pressure here is on B and his criminal defense attorney. Balancing the testimony, who would be more apt to be lying, the victim or the perpetrator. I think you can see how this might end.

So in review, would you like your case to balance on which of the following clash of testimonies: Example 1- A (victim) versus B (perpetrator), or Example 2 – C (independent witness) versus A (victim). In both scenarios the fundamental facts are the same, the only diffence being that B “talked” in Example 1 and did not “talk” in Example 2.

In which case would you like to go to trial in determining if you would go to prison and be labeled a registered sex offender. I leave it to you to decide.

Anthony Partipilo is the Managing Director/Attorney for America’s Criminal Defense Group. Call 866-479-0130 to schedule a free legal consultation with Mr. Partipilo.

In this case, the atheletic director and a school vice president are also charged with crimes for failing to notify and or pursue the alleged offender. Also, the school president and the head football coach lost their jobs as a result of the scandal. Also, I am sure that the university will suffer unknown damage as a result of all of this.

I don’t know enough to comment on all of these issues, except on the case of Joe Paterno, and only then from what I have read in the press reports. With this being said here is what I think.

It seems from the press reports that Joe Pa, once notified by an assistant coach of an alledged sexual act on a minor by Mr. Sandusky, reported it to the atheletic director as well as the vice president who I believe was in charge of the campus police. I have read that Mr. Paterno lost his job because he did not do more. To me this seems like adjudicating responsibility after you determine the severity of the act in question. We are now informed that Mr. Sandusky did many bad acts according to his 40 count indictment. From such a summary it is easy to assess blame for not stopping something at some earlier time. However, I think the better way to look at the matter is as the facts were presented at the time. Based upon this kind of analysis was the person’s behavior appropriate.

The answer that “he could have done more” is always available at the conclusion of a problem, but far from satisfactory to explain what would be appropriate behavior at the earlier time.

I think by this kind of analysis, Mr. Paterno did satisfactorily do what he was suppose to do. First, he notified his direct superior the atheletic director. Second, he notified the vice president for the university in charge of the campus police. I am advised that in Pennsylvania these police have the same standing as other police agenies is the state. So you tell your boss and you tell the boss of the police and you lose your job. It hardly seems fair that such a long standing positive career should have been ended on these facts alone.

I ask all of you out there, to look at yourself and ponder this question. If you heard about such an act (Mr. Paterno did not witness it himself) and you told your boss who controlled the personnel and the place where the activity alledgedly occurred and then you told the chief of police (University VP who was in charge of the police), would you thereafter have pursued any further courses of action. The probable answer would be that you would have expected the proper authorities to take over the investigation from there.

It just seems to me that with the clear view of hindsite, we as a society are very harsh on people who make decisions without the benefit of the same. I think Joe Pa deserved a better ending.

For example, often clients have no understanding as to what is the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony. This is a basic element that needs to be understood before moving forward on any case.

A misdemeanor can be defined as an offense for which the defendant can be incarcerated for up to one year (in most jurisdications). A felony is loosely defined as an offense for which the defendant can be incarcerated for more than one year to an unlimited time period such as life (in some jurisdictions the death penalty is available). Now both of these offenses can carry possible additional penalties such as probation, parole, fines, court costs, schooling, community service, restitution, registration etc. However, it is primarily the sentencing differences that most client’s are concerned about.

Another difference is that misdemeanor sentences are usually served in county jail while felony sentences are served in state prison. (This refers only to state court cases as federal cases have a separate system.) Also, misdemeanor cases can often be expunged while felony cases often cannot.

As can readily be seen, a big difference exists between the two types of criminal charges. So, be sure that the attorney completely explains your case to you. This should be done, whether your case is a midemeanor or a felony.

If you have been charged with either a felony or misdemeanor crime, contact America’s Criminal Defense Group at 1-866-479-0130 for a FREE legal consultation with Anthony Partipilo, Supervising Attorney.

How does this happen? Too often, if the attorney is paid only a retainer on the case, his or her effort is only to produce billable hours against the retainer. Once the billable hours equal the amount of the initial retainer fee, the attorney feels free to separate from the client. For the client to have the best possible result in the case, the criminal attorney must be invested in the final outcome from the very outset of the case.

We hear this often when we are contacted by clients who have separated from the attorney somewhere along the criminal trial process, before the actual criminal trial has occurred. When our law firm takes over at this point, many times we find that nothing substantive was done by the departing attorney. He or she has put in the hours but they have not been productive for the client. The result is that the money paid by the client to date has been wasted.

For the most part, we suggest the flat fee approach. This means that the criminal defense attorney quotes a flat fee to take the case from the beginning all the way through trial, covering all attorneys fees. This approach invests the attorney in the outcome of the case from the very beginning. As a result, the attorney should take a posture that, if not settled to the satisfaction of the client, the case will be going to trial. This puts the prosecutor on notice that this case is different from most other cases in that the criminal attorney plans to be there for the client through the entire process, including trial. This will cause the prosecutor to review the case for strengths and weaknesses, which may present opportunities for the criminal defense attorney to defeat or settle the case. This process needs a continuous effort over a period of time in which to return a positive outcome for the client.

Paying a retainer fee fails this test in almost all particulars and most likely the client will be unhappy about the outcome. Remember under this plan the attorney is simply working off his or her hours. So regardless of whether you hire an America’s Criminal Defense attorney or not, consider negotiating a reasonable flat fee for the entire case and get your attorney working for you from the get go. If the outcome of your criminal case is important to you, it is the only way to go.

Contact America’s Criminal Defense Group at 1-866-479-0130 for a FREE legal consultation. We will listen, and then upon your request, we will quote you a flat fee based on the specifics of your case.

“I believe there are existing laws dealing with aggravated child abuse, child abuse, child neglect including placing a child in harm’s way so I am not sure a new statute is necessary,” he said. “I know some may have believed the defendant guilty, but the jury selected by both sides and approved by the court made a decision based on the law, the evidence and their own experience.”

What does that have to do with failing to REPORT the DEATH or disappearance of a child in a reasonable amount of time.

There was no actual evidence to prove that Casey Anthony abused or neglected Caylee prior to her death, hence the verdict. But, not reporting that her child had died or was missing for such a long period is probably why there was no longer any evidence.

-George J. Cole, esq.
Senior Blog Contributor
America’s Criminal Defense Group

In the Casey Anthony case the prosecutor charged 1st degree murder with the death penalty. I think that with this charge the jury was forced to review all of the evidence with the thought that the jury could be sending a woman to her death. With that responsibility the jury became over sensitive to the task before them and I think that this set the stage for the not guilty finding. Of course this was not the only factor, and I will add to this post in the future, but I believe that this was the beginning of the end for the prosection.

My hope from all this is that prosecutors will in the future temper the charges they make against defendants to reflect the facts in the case and not reflective of their immagination. Such over zealous charging does nothing to serve the ends of justice.

Anthony Partipilo is the Supervising Attorney for America’s Criminal Defense Group

People can expect that aggressive government action is coming in areas of real estate and lending as well as areas of income tax and other forms of tax avoidance. From client inquiries we are already sensing movement into these areas.

With this as a background, I would recommend that if you get contacted by anyone concerning such a potential crime that you immediately contact a criminal attorney to represent you. Do not, under any circumstances, try to “talk your way out of it”. Also, don’t let it sit and do nothing about it. The reasons are simple, if you talk, it will be used against you, and if you don’t address the problem (through an attorney only), you may be letting an opportunity to successfully settle the matter get away.

Don’t hesitate to act; hiring a criminal attorney as soon as possible in this type of case provides you with the greatest chance for a successful outcome. In the federal area this is really important as cases handled before indictment and after indictmnet are likely to have far different outcomes.

Some thoughts from Anthony Partipilo, Supervising Attorney for America’s Criminal Defense Group

In the situation where possession of a gun is legal in one state and that same possession is a felony in another state, it is essential that you retain a criminal attorney for your protection in any gun rights case. Don’t be the victim of gun rights discrimination, be prepared to fight back.

Some thoughts from Anthony Partipilo, Supervising Attorney for America’s Criminal Defense Group