TWO DAYS AGO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ISSUED TWO INTERNAL MEMOS TO FEDERAL PROSECUTORS OUTLINING PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE GATHERING AND DISTRIBUTION OF DISCOVERY. THE MEMOS ARE FULL OF INFORMATION THAT CAN BE USEFUL TO CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS SUCH AS THE FOLLOWING PASSAGE:
Justice Sutherland’s observations regarding the role of a prosecutor are as true today as they were when he wrote them over 70 years ago. He wrote:
The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor–indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.
Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935).
THE FIRST MEMO DISCUSSES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S PHILOSOPHY PERTAINING TO DISCOVERY AND THE SECOND CONTAINS DETAILED INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE NEW POLICIES. THEY CAN BE READ IN THEIR ENTIRETY AT THE FOLLOWING LINKS:
http://www.justice.gov/dag/dag-memo.html
http://www.justice.gov/dag/discovery-guidance.html
Liz won another rape case today in Delaware County. One day after the scheduled opening of the trial where her client faced a five year mandatory minimum sentence her client pled guilty to six months of house arrest on corruption of minors and indecent assault, avoiding jail time and the Megan’s Law reporting requirements.
Pennsylvania law has been modified to expand the restitution permitted in Identity Theft cases. In addition to all traditional restitution, the amendments provide for all reasonable expenses incurred by the victim, or on the victim’s behalf, to:
1) investigate the identity theft
2) bring or defend criminal and/or civil actions in court to redress the identity theft
3) repair any blemishes on the victim’s credit record
Perhaps most importantly, the amended law permits recovery of fees paid to attorneys, credit bureaus, and private investigators, as well as recovery of court costs and filing fees. It is very rare that Pennsylvania law permits recovery of professional fees, investigation fees, or courts costs. This will be a powerful new statute that will permit victims to enlist the aid of private attorneys, at the expense of the perpetrators, in an attempt to recoup any losses they have suffered. Our experience and expertise in Identity Theft cases leaves us uniquely positioned to benefit either the victims of Identity Theft or the accused, though obviously not within the same case. Please contact us for further information.
I finally decided to post this issue to our blog after encountering yet another client who was told by the court that as a part of ARD his record would be expunged. The more accurate way to state this is that it can be expunged. However, unless you prepare and file a Expungement Petition and then mail the resulting Order out to all the law enforcement agencies that maintain your records (generally more than 10) the arrest will remain on your record for years to come. In fact, with the evolution of the internet, such records are now readily accessible by the public at the AOPC website at http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/. Thus, despite being told that your record “will be expunged” the truth is that it will never be expunged unless you contact an attorney and follow through with the expungement process. We handle expungements regularly and will be happy to guide you through the process.
Liz just took a jury verdict this afternoon finding her client guilty of Criminal Trespass and Simple Assault where he was accused of two separate incidents of Aggravated Assault against his wife and another man. This likely converts a sentence that would have exceeded five years to time-served.
