Atlanta Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

The accepted narrative for the criminal justice system is that law enforcement officials are always on the side of justice, protecting us from criminal bandits. But outside of Spaghetti Westerns, this narrative is a gross oversimplification of reality. In many instances, the "criminal bandits" are not criminals at all, but instead innocent civilians who are the unfortunate targets of police attention. Other times, the alleged evidence that the police would use to implicate the suspects was collected illegally.

The "white cowboy hat" narrative not only fails because the bad guys are not always guilty, but also because the good guys aren't always good. The U.S. Attorney's Office recently announced that a former Fulton County Prison guard has pled guilty to federal charges related to bribery and drug distribution.

When facing federal criminal charges, a person can feel like they have few options. Of course, federal investigators and prosecutors attempt to make it seem like a conviction and lengthy sentence are a foregone conclusion. But individuals accused of crimes still have rights, and they can exercise these rights to contest the criminal charges against them at trial.

There is a story in the Atlanta Journal Constitution today about the owner of a medical clinic who apparently left the county shortly after federal investigators conducted a search of his business in relation to suspicions of Medicare fraud. Prosecutors will likely try paint this as an attempt to flee because the owner engaged in the alleged conduct. But it could also simply be a reaction to the feelings of helplessness and hopelessness that even an innocent person may feel when facing these types of charges.

Earlier this month, we shared a story with you about how Georgia is poised to reconsider some of its harsh criminal sentencing policies. As that process moves forward, it will be interesting to see whether policymakers also address various enhancements that can be tacked onto drug charges.

While sentences for drug possession and possession with intent to distribute can be severe all on their own, many criminal suspects also face additional charges for a wide variety circumstances. These enhancements can exponentially increase the potential sentence in a case.

The American dream of owning a nice home can be a very compelling motivator. Before the housing bubble burst, many people were willing to go to extreme lengths to have homes of their own. The seemingly ever rising home values combined with federal incentives for home ownership made buying a home seem like a situation without any potential downside.

When potential homeowners and lenders hit snags when attempting to qualify a buyer for a mortgage, the idea of contorting the numbers to make them fit the requirements may not have seemed out of line. But now, in the wake of the collapse of the housing market, law enforcement authorities are looking closely for instances of potential mortgage fraud.

One of the goals of criminal prosecutors is to make the jury believe that they have an airtight case. They would like the jury to think that all of the evidence and witness testimony points clearly to the guilt of the suspect. But as much as they may not want to, prosecutors are required to disclose evidence that is likely to demonstrate that the suspect is innocent; this is commonly referred to as exculpatory evidence.

In a decision yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a conviction of criminal suspect because the prosecution in the case had not disclosed exculpatory material evidence. This was evidence that would have weakened the prosecution's case if it had been made available to the criminal suspect.

In our last post we introduced the issue of criminal sentencing for non-violent offenders. We described how many non-violent offenders find themselves back in prison after getting out the first time because they have not had an opportunity to address the underlying substance abuse and mental health issues that played a role in their initial interactions with the justice system.

In the second part of this series we will look at some of the specific findings and recommendations of the Special Council appointed to consider this problem.

Anyone who has had contact with the criminal justice system has likely seen this common scenario play out. An individual who has a mental health issue or substance abuse problem is convicted of a crime either directly or indirectly related to his underlying issue. The individual is sentenced to some amount of time of incarceration. When he is eventually released, he comes out with even fewer connections to his family and community and no better equipped to deal with his underlying issue than he was when originally convicted.

Without any meaningful rehabilitation, the individual soon finds himself charged with another non-violent offense. As the length of his criminal record grows, so does the length of his sentence. Not only is this an apparent waste of criminal justice resources, but also of the person's life, a person who may be able to become a contributing member of society if only the cycle could be short-circuited and the person given much-needed treatment. Georgia policy makers will soon consider a proposal to refocus the criminal code to encourage alternative sentences for non-violent offenders.

For most cases involving drug possession, or even possession with intent to distribute, the case is handled in state court without federal interaction. The determination of whether a criminal case should be handled at a state or federal level depends on a number of factors, particularly in drug cases, the amounts of drugs that are allegedly involved. The decision as to whether to pursue a criminal case at the state of federal level can also have a significant impact on the potential sentence the suspect may ultimately face.

You may have heard news reports concerning the arrest, about 20 miles west of Atlanta, of the musician known as Soulja Boy. The local police chief has now indicated that the investigation into that case has now been turned over to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.