918-550-9175

Facebook

Twitter

LinkedIn

Free Evaluation
logo
mobile logo
 

due process Tag

08 February
0 Comments
Sticky

Impaired Driving Elimination Act Violates Due Process, Court Says

Posted by Clint
in Blog
Impaired Driving Elimination Act Violates Due Process, Court Says

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has declared that the newly enacted Impaired Driving Elimination Act is unconstitutional. Due to go into effect on November 1, 2017, the Act would have virtually eliminated the administrative hearing process for revocation of driver’s licenses, would have made refusal of a breath test illegal, and would have expanded use of ignition interlock devices. A group of Oklahoma attorneys challenged the Act in court last summer, and the court halted implementation of the Act while the legal challenge was pending. Just recently, the Oklahoma Supreme Court issued its ruling declaring that the Act violates due process and...

Continue reading
13 December
0 Comments
Sticky

The Duty of Prosecutors to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence

Posted by Clint
in Blog
The Duty of Prosecutors to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence

Prosecutors must disclose all exculpatory evidence to defense attorneys in Oklahoma. “Exculpatory” evidence tends to show that the defendant is not guilty or shows that the crime committed is a lesser offense (e.g. manslaughter instead of murder). Both state rules of professional responsibility and a number of Supreme Court cases explain this mandate. Oklahoma Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 3.8(d) states: “A prosecutor shall make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense”. The Code of Professional Responsibility must be followed by...

Continue reading
29 September
0 Comments
Sticky

The Driver’s License: A Privilege or a Right?

Posted by Clint
in Blog
The Driver's License: A Privilege or a Right?

Holding a driver’s license has been called both a privilege and a right. The Supreme Court weighed in on driver’s license revocation hearings and related issues in two cases from the 1970s. In the case of Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971), the Supreme Court determined that an administrative driver’s license revocation must involve a determination of whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the driver will be found liable for the offense. In other words, a long-term (not temporary) license revocation because a driver might have committed a crime cannot be automatic. If it is truly automatic and does...

Continue reading
25 September
0 Comments
Sticky

Supreme Court Cases About Taking Blood Samples

Posted by Clint
in Blog
Supreme Court Cases About Taking Blood Samples

Blood samples taken from suspected drunk drivers have been the topic of several high-profile Supreme Court cases. Defendants have challenged whether compelled blood samples violate the Fifth Amendment and whether evidence of refusal to take a blood test violates the Fifth Amendment. In both cases, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government. In the case of Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), a drunk driving suspect was arrested while in the hospital receiving treatment for injuries. At the hospital, a police officer ordered a doctor to take the driver’s blood sample. The sample was used as evidence, and...

Continue reading
22 September
0 Comments
Sticky

Do I Have the Right to Assistance at Trial by an Expert Witness?

Posted by Clint
in Blog
Do I Have the Right to Assistance at Trial by an Expert Witness?

Criminal defendants who cannot afford to pay for an expert witness but need one to mount a defense may wonder if the Constitution grants them the right to expert witness assistance at trial. The Supreme Court has determined – twice – that at a minimum, there is a right to assistance of a mental health expert to evaluate the defendant in death penalty cases. Whether there is a right to expert witness assistance in non-death penalty cases, or whether there is a right to assistance by other types of experts, are open questions. In Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985),...

Continue reading
20 September
0 Comments
Sticky

Exclusion of Identification Evidence at Trial

Posted by Clint
in Blog
Exclusion of Identification Evidence at Trial

Exclusion of identification evidence at trial can be a turning point for a criminal case. Getting the judge to agree that alleged eyewitnesses should not testify that they saw the defendant at the scene of the crime requires an evaluation of all the circumstances of the identification. In a 1977 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States explained the test for excluding identification evidence. The decision, Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977), confirmed earlier case law in explaining why a police officer viewing a single photograph and then making an in-court identification did not violate the Due Process Clause...

Continue reading
08 September
0 Comments
Sticky

Is It Legal for the Police to Destroy My Breath Sample?

Posted by Clint
in Blog
Is It Legal for the Police to Destroy My Breath Sample?

Charges of driving under the influence implicate legal issues from proper handling of evidence to confessions to warrants. In California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984), the United States Supreme Court considered whether releasing the air from breath samples after analysis violates the accused’s right to examine any potentially exonerating evidence. Trombetta involved several defendants arrested for driving under the influence, taken to a police station, and given breath tests. After they took the breath tests and the police analyzed and recorded the results, the police opened the breathalyzer chamber and purged out the air inside. The same is done for...

Continue reading