Pork Chops, Partying, and Paramours: Motives in Criminal Cases

[Photo from myrecipes.com]

Can you imagine murdering someone over a pork chop!?  As a former federal and state prosecutor, (and currently, as an Augusta, Georgia criminal defense lawyer), I have always been amazed at some of the motives, or reasons, why criminal defendants committed various crimes.  For instance, we have recently seen, in the Casey Anthony murder trial, a lot of evidence offered by the State concerning why she allegedly murdered her daughter, Caylee Anthony.  The state's evidence of motive reportedly centered around Casey Anthony's alleged desire to kill her daughter, so she could return to a single, partying lifestyle.  Of course, the defense attorneys deny such proof of motive existed.

But as a former prosecutor and criminal attorney, I have seen many other, even stranger, motives for crimes.  For example, as alluded to above, I once prosecuted a man for murdering his son because the son had come home from work and eaten the last pork chop which the father had cooked. 

Also, as a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, I once prosecuted a greedy bookkeeper for stealing elderly nursing home patients' money, so she could satisfy her clothes shopping addiction. 

Finally, in one of my strangest murder cases, I also once prosecuted a father for murdering his daughter's paramour, because of jealousy.  Incredibly, the father, who had had an intimate relationship with his adult daughter, simply wanted to eliminate his competition for her favors and affection.

Perhaps there are as many motives for crimes as there are crimes.  Don't you agree?  Have you ever heard or read about any unusual motives for crimes?  By the way, I claim the last pork chop!

The Casey Anthony Murder Case and Predicting Jury Verdicts

[Photo from visitahc.org]

As I am writing this post, the jury has been out for several hours while deliberating in the Casey Anthony murder trial.  With little more to report, various television news programs are presently featuring criminal lawyers and former prosecutors who are all trying to predict what the Anthony jury will do.  But does anyone really know the particular verdict which this, or any, jury will return?

The straight, simple answer is "No!"  No one, not even the criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors who have just given the closing arguments can really guess what the jury will do.  Jury deliberations are, of course, done in secret.  And that is the way it should be.

Of course, sometimes, as an Augusta, Georgia criminal defense attorney, (and as a former A.U.S.A., or federal prosecutor), I can tell if  jurors are making good eye contact with me, or otherwise paying close attention to me, during closing argument.  The lawyers in the Casey Anthony case will also know how well each side of the case was presented to the jury.

In other words, the lawyers may have hunches.  But that's about it.  Trust me, nobody, not even the lawyers in the case, really, truly knows what is going on in the jury room!  In short, jury deliberation privacy is one of the wonderful things about our criminal justice system!  We, including the public, the lawyers, and the defendant Casey Anthony, will all know the jury's verdict soon enough.

Closing Arguments in Criminal Cases: How Long or How Short Should They Be?

[Photo from Wikipedia.org]

As you may know, as a former state and federal prosecutor, and currently, as a criminal defense lawyer, I have prosecuted, (and now defended), literally hundreds of jury trials over the years.  Today, I want to talk a little bit about the length of closing arguments.  In other words, how long or how short should they be?  Put another way, do you believe that juries of today have the same attention span as juries of one hundred years ago?

As I am writing this post, I am listening to the closing arguments in the Casey Anthony murder trial.  It is expected that the closing arguments in this high profile trial will last only a couple of hours each.

But did you know that, years ago, closing arguments often lasted for many hours, or even for days?  For example, in 1913, during the infamous Georgia trial of Leo M. Frank for murdering Mary Phagan, the closing argument of Solicitor General Hugh Dorsey lasted a whopping nine hours!  This was not unusual!

Today, on the other hand, closing arguments seldom last longer than in the Casey Anthony murder case.  Why?  How are jurors different today?  Here are my guesses.  One reason, in my opinion, is that the psyche, or expectation, of today's juror is much different than the juror of one hundred years ago.  The pace of life was also slower then.  Also, back then, jurors were conditioned or accustomed to long sermons from long-winded politicians and preachers.  Maybe they just expected the same down at the courthouse.  

But in our fast-paced, instant messaging society of today, jurors simply expect to receive more information much more quickly.  Arguably, our attention spans are shorter today, too.  For instance, jurors today expect every t.v. drama to be solved within the hour and before the last commercial!

Regardless of the reasons, closing arguments in today's criminal cases will never be as long as in cases tried one hundred years ago.  But perhaps we are all better off!  Can you imagine having to sit still and listen to any lawyer for nine hours today!?  What do you think?

Lessons from Blago's Case: Former Governor Rod Blagojevich Convicted on 17 Counts

[Photo from Wikipedia]

Today, various news reports indicate that former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was found guilty on 17 felony counts in federal court.  The charges include conspiracy, soliciting a bribe, and wire fraud.  The charges relate, among other things, to Blago's attempt to sell the U.S. Senate seat of former Senator Obama, after the latter became president.  Blago was also reportedly found not guilty on one count by the federal jury, which also could not agree on two other remaining counts.  Sentencing will be held at a later date. 

Here's my take on the verdict, as a former federal prosecutor and, currently, as an Augusta, Georgia criminal defense attorney.  First of all, it appears that the federal prosecutors made a wise move by streamlining the case.  For instance, since the last trial, last year, which ended in a hung jury on most counts, the prosecution dismissed a number of counts, (including a complex RICO count), and made the criminal case much easier for the jury to digest.  No doubt the government also learned from their experience in the last trial about who made good, credible witnesses and who did not. 

Finally, it is interesting to note that, in the last trial, Blago elected not to testify and he clearly did much better than in this trial, in which he testified.  Some criminal lawyers believe a jury will often hold it against a defendant who elects not to testify.  However, perhaps this trial illustrates that each case is different and that, sometimes, it may be best for a defendant to elect to stay off the stand. 

What do you think about a defendant's decision not to testify?  Would you hold it against him or her for not testifying, even though the judge will instruct you not to do so?

Of course, perhaps another lesson to be learned from Blago's case is that, if you are a politician, you shouldn't try to solicit a bribe in exchange for a political favor!

What do you think about the result in the Blago case?  Is the problem of political corruption better or worse today than in the past?

Don Lepre, Fraud, and Lessons About Missing Court

[Photo from dailymail.co.uk]

As a former federal prosecutor and, currently, as an Augusta, Georgia criminal defense lawyer, I can tell you that one important lesson I have learned about criminal cases is that -- no matter what else happens -- you must always show up at court on time.  You must never keep a judge waiting! 

Well, according to news reports, Mr. Don Lepre, the so-called "King of Infomercials," has apparently never learned this lesson.  Lepre has reportedly now been arrested in Tempe, Arizona by U.S. Marhals after missing his arraignment, which was scheduled for earlier this week in Phoenix.  If he had appeared in court, Lepre had reportedly been expected to enter a not guilty plea to federal fraud charges.

The fraud charges, including conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering, reportedly revolve around Lepre's business, the "Greatest Vitamins in the World."  The indictment alleges, among other things, that numerous victims were promised money which they never received for selling vitamins.  Of course, Lepre has a right to enter a not guilty plea and a right to a jury trial.

But first, Lepre apparently must learn to show up at court!  And I am quite confident that a federal judge will now teach him this important lesson and ensure he shows up from now on!

A Smug Mug Shot: The John Edwards Federal Case

[Photo from yahoo news]

Who is this man?  How can he actually smile for a mug shot?  What does John Edwards know that you and I don't know about his federal criminal case?  Here is my take!

As you may know, I am a former federal prosecutor, for over 20 years, here in the Southern District of Georgia.  Presently, I practice as a criminal defense lawyer in Augusta, Georgia with my oldest son.  I have tried some of the largest, most complex criminal cases in Georgia history.

As you may also know, fromer Senator John Edwards faces federal criminal charges in connection with his alleged use of presidential campaign funds to help conceal his relationship with his girl friend, Rielle Hunter, (and mother of his love child). 

I had predicted that Edwards would be indicted, but I never would have predicted the federal indictment would take so long to occur.  Nor would I have guessed that Edwards would flash his famous smile during his mug shots!

So, why might Edwards be smiling?  What does Edwards know that others don't know?

Here's my next prediction!  I predict that John Edwards stands a good chance of being acquitted by a federal jury on his alleged campaign violations.  Here is why:

As I have indicated before, in my experience, as a criminal lawyer, any time a criminal defendant can admit the act, but deny the intent, (or mens rea), he or she stands a decent chance at an acquittal.  That is generally the best defense in many criminal cases, in my opinion.  Also, in this case, the government appears to have, at best, a technical reporting kind of case.  In other words, no matter how you might feel about Edwards' infidelity while his poor wife was dying, in this criminal case, he is not charged with adultery.  He is primarily charged only with technical campaign reporting violations. 

In addition, a sound argument might be presented, in his trial defense, that the funds utilized (to help his girl friend), were not campaign donations at all.  Instead, it appears that the funds were merely a gift from a wealthy, elderly friend.  Finally, as another reason for my prediction here, I don't discount the fact that Edwards is a charmer--after all, he is a former successful trial lawyer and politician! 

So, no wonder John Edwards is smiling in his mug shot!  Whether you like it or not, he might be acquitted!  It will be interesting to see if he is still smiling, down the road, when the jury announces its verdict!  What do you think?

Movies About White Collar Crime: Psycho

[Photo from extramina.com]

What are your favorite movies about white collar crime?  One of my favorites is the Alfred Hitchcock classic movie, Psycho, starring Janet Leigh and Anthony Perkins, as the infamous Norman Bates.  You might not have considered this horror classic to be a movie about white collar crime.  But, in one sense, the plot actually revolves around it.  You will recall that Ms. Leigh's character ended up at the Bates Motel after she had embezzled $40,000 in cash from her employer.  Of course, thereafter, what Norman Bates did to her was certainly not a white collar crime!

Again, what are some of your favorite movies which involve white collar crime?