419elyqIUL_SS500-300x300CRIMES

50 ‘most charged’ crimes defined

LOITERING and PROWLING

To prove the crime of loitering and prowling, the state must prove:

  1. Defendant loitered or prowled in a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for law abiding individuals.
  2. The loitering and prowling was under circumstances that warranted justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.

To loiter is to linger or dawdle or remain or move about without a lawful purpose.

 

419elyqIUL_SS500-300x300CRIMES

50 ‘most charged’ crimes defined

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

To be guilty the state must prove:

The defendant unnecessarily overloads, overdrives, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance or shelter, or unnecessarily mutilates, or kills any animal, or causes the same to be done, or carries in or upon any vehicle, or otherwise, any animal in a cruel or inhumane manner.

It can be a felony if the defendant intentionally commits an act to any animal which results in the cruel death, or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering.

419elyqIUL_SS500-300x300CRIMES

50 ‘most charged’ crimes defined

POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE

‘Possession’ means to have personal charge of, or exercise the right of ownership, management, or control over the thing possessed.

Possession may be actual or constructive.

‘Constructive possession’ means the thing is in a place over which the person has control, or in which the person has concealed it.

If a person has exclusive possession of a thing, knowledge of its presence may be inferred or assumed.

Book-Cover-new-20190226-203x300CRIMES

50 ‘most charged’ crimes defined

KIDNAPPING

To prove the crime of kidnapping, the state must prove the following three elements:

  1. Defendant forcibly, secretly, or by threat: confined, or abducted, or imprisoned the victim against his or her will.
  2. The defendant had no lawful authority
  3. The defendant acted with intent to do any of the following:

 

  • commit a felony
  • hold for ransom
  • inflict bodily harm
  • terrorize the victim
  • interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function.

Book-Cover-new-20190226-203x300CRIMES

50 ‘most charged’ crimes defined

STALKING

A course of conduct where the defendant willfully, maliciously and repeatedly followed or harassed the victim.

Harass means a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress and serves no legitimate purpose.

Aggravated Stalking includes the added act of a credible threat that places the victim in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury.

A credible threat means a threat made with the intent to cause reasonable fear for one’s safety, and must be against the life of the victim or a threat to cause bodily injury.

Book-Cover-new-20190226-203x300CRIMES

50 ‘most charged’ crimes defined

TRAFFICKING IN ILLEGAL DRUGS

To prove this the state must prove all of the following:

  1. The defendant knowingly sold, purchased, manufactured, delivered, or possessed
  2. A controlled substance (or a mixture containing a controlled substance)
  3. The weight of which is more than 5 grams (Federal) most States’ trafficking charges start at 28 grams for ‘controlled substances’. Trafficking in some pills can be as few as ONE pill!
  4. Knowing the substance or mixture contained a controlled substance
  5. With the intention to sell, purchase, manufacture or deliver the controlled substance.

The State does not have to prove a sale.  Giving drugs (at a party for example) is trafficking for some pills.

 

Book-Cover-new-20190226-203x300CRIMES

50 ‘most charged’ crimes defined

MURDER

The unlawful and premeditated killing of a human being.

Killing with premeditation is killing after consciously deciding to do so.

The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing.

The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing.

The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant.  The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing.

Book-Cover-new-20190226-203x300CRIMES

50 ‘most charged’ crimes defined

MONEY LAUNDERING

A Defendant can be found guilty of this offense only if all of the following are proved beyond a reasonable doubt;

  1. The defendant knowingly engaged, or attempted, to engage in a monetary transaction.
  2. The defendant knew the transaction involved criminally derived property.
  3. More than $10,000.00 was involved (federal).
  4. The property was, in fact, derived from an unlawful activity, which must be proven.
  5. The transaction occurred in the United States.

The term “monetary transaction” means the [deposit] [withdrawal] [transfer] or [exchange], in or affecting interstate commerce, of funds or a monetary instrument by, through, or to a financial institution obtained by some criminal offense.

fullsizeoutput_1-210x300

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rsw_1280-300x225How to get a Federal Judge to dismiss your indictment if you are charged with Human Trafficking and the charge involves sex with a minor and there was in fact no minor

If you have an attorney, you should share this blog with him/her.  If you are representing yourself (no lawyer) look at some of my cases in federal court in Tampa and Miami and New York.   In all events, do not try to do this alone: you need an attorney.  Here’s how I set the legal stage for a dismissal of the charges:  Step One:  file the motion pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Step Two:  inform the federal judge your challenge the Indictment by pretrial motion. (cite this case: United States v. Spero, 331 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2003). Step Three:  argue that the Indictment is defective and fails to properly and fully charge an offense under 18 U.S.C. 1591. (cite:  United States v. Fern, 155 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 1998) and United States v. Chilcote, 724 F.2d 1498 (11th Cir. 1984). Step Four:  Argue that the defect in the Indictment is the Indictment does not contain language that the alleged victim was a “victim of human trafficking”.

Tough argument to make? Not really.  Prior to 2015, a majority of the Federal Appellate Courts ruled that you can be arrested and convicted as a Human Sex Trafficker even if the government did not have a live human being victim.  That is now under attack and here is how I do it:  You argue that in 2015 Congress amended 18 U.S.C. § 1591.

Inform the federal Judge that the legislative history of the amended statute shows that it was the intent of the Congress to prosecute criminals “who purchase sexual acts from human trafficking victims”.  [ Specifically, this language can be found in the May 29, 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-22 § 109, 2015 (129 Stat. 227, 239), 18 U.S.C. § 1591 (2012)]   Next throw in a paragraph or two and argue that Congress is presumed to be aware of an administrative or judicial interpretation of a statute and to adopt that interpretation when it re-enacts a statute without change, (If you want to really nail this argument throw a reference to these cases and watch the Assistant United States Attorney who is prosecuting you throw a temper fit… Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 414 n. 8, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 2370, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975);*581 NLRB v. Gullett Gin Co., 340 U.S. 361, 366, 71 S.Ct. 337, 340, 95 L.Ed. 337 (1951); National Lead Co. v. United States, 252 U.S. 140, 147, 40 S.Ct. 237, 239, 64 L.Ed. 496 (1920); 2A C. Sands, Sutherland on Statutory Construction § 49.09 and cases cited (4th ed. 1973).  I then throw into the stew (my motion) something about the fact that the new amended 18 U.S.C. § 1591incorporated sections of prior law.   Everyone one has to agree that Congress can be presumed to have had knowledge of the interpretation given to the incorporated law, at least insofar as it affects the new statute and… Congressional intent is clear from the official record of Legislative Intent and purpose.  Congress acted in 2015 and spoke to this issue.  For a little legal spicing you can include the wording of the Statement of Congressional Intent it becomes clear that the purpose and intent of the 2015 amendments to 18 U.S.C. § 1591 was, in the words of the Congress “… to correct the courts, prosecutors and law enforcement agencies and to require they comport with 18 U.S.C. § 1591 and its purpose and correct application in arresting and prosecuting individuals who seek to obtain or obtain sexual relations with and from individuals who are in fact victims of human trafficking.”   Still with me on this?….. I continue to argue that Congress in 2015 is bell-clear in instructing and correcting courts that 18 U.S.C. § 1591 requires the government allege and prove that persons, such as the defendant, can only be convicted when the government alleges in the Indictment and proves by evidence that the defendant sought to obtain sexual concourse with a minor who was and is in fact the victim of human trafficking.

My motion goes on a bit.  If you want a copy of my pleadings, you can email me, and I’ll discuss it with your federal public defender or your private federal criminal defense lawyer (if you have hired one).  In the end the motion to dismiss the indictment for  Human Trafficking  [where your charge involves allegations of negotiating to have sex with a minor and there was in fact no minor (just a lot of “dirty talk” with a federal case agent posing as a pimp)] can  get the case tossed.

 

Book-Cover-new-20190226-203x300CRIMES

50 ‘most charged’ crimes defined

MANSLAUGHTER

Manslaughter is killing a human being without malice, and without premeditation, and without justification or legal excuse. It is taking a human life by culpable negligence, but without the specific intent to cause death.

Manslaughter differs from murder: malice (evil intent) and premeditation is the essence of murder. Culpable negligence or the unintended causing of death is manslaughter.

Culpable negligence:  Everyone has a duty to act reasonably towards others.  If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.  But culpable negligence is more than failure to use ordinary care toward others.  In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant.  Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or the safety of persons exposed to dangerous effects.