Tennessee Criminal Lawyer Blog

Animal fighting has made somewhat of a resurgence in the national headlines lately with the exploits of individuals such as Michael Vick, former quarterback of the Atlanta Falcons who now plays for the Philadelphia Eagles, who served prison time due to his connection with a dog-fighting ring. More recently, officials in California arrested three men and seized 600 birds used for cockfighting at a farm in an area in which they had made arrests and seized over 1200 birds just the year before. The article cited below details several other arrests which have been made in the area for cockfighting, which is a sport and betting activity that still thrives in the underground in very state.

As stated in the article, cockfighting is illegal in every state and thirty-nine states have made it a felony. Tennessee, however, is not one of those thirty-nine states. While Tennessee has made it a felony to participate in fighting any animal for sport, amusement, or gain under T.C.A. §39-14-203, Tennessee carved out a specific exception for cockfighting that makes such activity only a Class A misdemeanor. This means that it is punishable by a maximum of eleven months and twenty-nine days, while fighting any other animal in violation of the statute is punishable by up to six years in prison. The reason for this disparity is not clear. Maybe the Tennessee legislature thinks that cockfighting is not as dangerous to the public as other types of fighting or maybe cockfighting is so prevalent in Tennessee that state legislators feared alienating friends and voters by choosing a harsher punishment. Either way, the disparity exists.

Animal fighting is alive and well in Tennessee, and Tennesseans are frequently charged under the above-referenced statute for their involvement in such activity. The severity of the charges differs depending on the animal, but any charge under the statute carries the risk of incarceration. Tennesseans who find themselves charged with animal fighting should contact a skilled East Tennessee criminal defense attorney who has experience dealing with such charges and can assist them throughout the trial process.

Source: http://www.aolnews.com/crime/article/feathers-fly-as-calif-police-crack-down-on-cockfighting/19465758

In continuing the tradition that was started yesterday on our blog of discussing suspects eating the evidence, we bring you the story of a forty year-old Ohio woman who attempted to rob a local bank with a note but ended up eating the note instead. She apparently got to the front of the teller line and handed the teller the note. Then, before the teller could actually read the note, the lady noticed that a uniformed FBI agent (off-duty at the time) was standing in line behind her. This caused her to panic, and she grabbed the note from the teller and tried to flee the bank. On her way out, she attempted to eat the note but was unable to swallow it and it was found outside. The FBI agent made the arrest without any problems.

One common misconception concerning evidence such as the note used to rob the bank is that people seem to believe that if the police cannot find the note then the person cannot be convicted of trying to rob the bank. That simply is not true. There are two types of evidence that can be used in criminal cases: direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence would be something like the note itself that plainly proves that the lady tried to rob the bank without the jury having to make any inferences. Circumstantial evidence is a little trickier. The circumstantial evidence would be evidence that would allow the jury to draw the conclusion that the lady tried to rob the bank without actually having direct proof. It would go something like this: (1) the lady handed the teller a note; (2) the lady noticed a police officer in line behind her; (3) the lady grabbed the note and ran out of the bank; (4) the lady tried to eat the note; (5) therefore, the note must have been evidence of a crime, which, given the circumstances, (6) must have been attempted bank robbery.

While direct evidence proves a fact more convincingly, circumstantial evidence is just as admissible in a court of law and jurors are often given specific instructions that state that circumstantial evidence can be the basis for a conviction. Often, a key factor in the strength of circumstantial evidence in a case is how well the defense attorney is able to emphasize the lack of direct evidence and downplay the inferences that can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence. This is a technique that is learned with courtroom experience and serves as another way in which experienced criminal defense attorneys can assist their clients.

The Constitution grants many different rights to criminal defendants with one of the most important being protection from “double jeopardy,” which is being tried twice for the same offense. This protects defendants by preventing them from being found not guilty of an offense by a jury of their peers and then being put right back to trial for the same offense in front of a different jury. This right has also been interpreted as protecting defendants from being convicted of two different criminal offenses for the exact same conduct by the state or federal government. However, it is of vital importance to note that the double jeopardy principle does not protect a defendant from being prosecuted by both the state and the federal government for the same offense.

To provide an example, if a state and the federal government have identical bank fraud statutes and a defendant commits an act of bank fraud that fits the elements of both statutes then there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the defendant from being tried by both the state and federal government for the offense. In fact the state may wait and see if the federal government pursues the case and obtains a conviction before deciding to bring charges itself, and vice-versa. The two governments may also cooperate and coordinate their investigations.

The reason this is allowed is the principle of dual sovereignty. Simply put, while the Constitution limits one government’s ability to try a defendant twice for the same offense, it cannot limit the state or federal government from enforcing its own laws where such enforcement is appropriate. Since the state and federal governments are two completely separate entities with their own sources of power and sets of rules, there is nothing unconstitutional about both of them choosing to enforce those laws even if they know the other governmental entity is doing the same. Facing charges for the same offense from two different prosecutors can be an extremely trying experience. Defendants who are facing such an ordeal should consult an experienced criminal defense attorney who can keep them abreast of what is happening with regard to all of their charges and help the defendant work toward a fair resolution of his or her case.

As a wise group of men collectively known as Nazareth once put it: love hurts. Well, love hurts even more if you poison your own coffee in an attempt to get attention from the girl who just broke up with you. In fact, it may just hurt so much that it puts you in the hospital. If you need to know just what this type of love feels like, you can ask Chad Wunschel, a twenty-seven year-old substitute teacher who put a chemical in his iced coffee in order to make himself sick and get sympathy from his ex. Unfortunately, when he reported to the nurse’s station, he was taken to the hospital and the authorities were contacted to investigate the poisoning. When the police arrived at the school, they put the teacher’s entire class on lock down while they questioned each and every kid as a potential suspect in the poisoning for approximately forty minutes each. As detailed in the article below, students were understandably upset when they found out that the teacher allowed them to be subjected to this interrogation when it was he that was responsible for the poisoning in the first place. He later admitted to poisoning himself and was fired from his job.

In Tennessee, Mr. Wunschel would likely be charged with filing a false report in violation of T.C.A. § 39-16-502(a). Under this statute, it is illegal to initiate a report or statement to a law enforcement official knowing that the incident did not occur, give a statement in response to an inquiry by a police officer that misleads that officer or prevents the person responsible from being apprehended, and to initiate a report of a past, present, or future emergency knowing that authorities will respond to it. In this case, the teacher more than likely allowed police to believe someone had poisoned him and should probably have known that the authorities would act to begin an investigation and catch the suspect. Thus, he would likely be found to be in violation of the statute. Filing a false report is a felony in Tennessee, with the actual grade of the offense being determined by the circumstances.

It is a defense to such a charge that the person did not act with a wrongful intent, that it to say that the person did not intentionally mislead police or thought the statement he gave to the police was essentially true. Persons who have been charged with filing a false report are looking at serious jail time and should consult a knowledgeable criminal defense attorney who can assist them in contesting the charge.

Source: http://www.necn.com/04/30/10/Police-GNBVT-teacher-admits-to-poisoning/landing.html?blockID=226625&feedID=4215

Ben Martin, a thirty-one year-old former barber from Los Angeles, really wanted to do his part to help the homeless get off of the city streets, for all the wrong reasons. Instead of volunteering his time at a homeless shelter or joining a program like Habitat for Humanity (which assists persons unable to afford or find housing with obtaining a place to call their own), Mr. Martin decided he would just find a homeless person, douse them with gasoline, and burn them alive. He did just that, and although nearby witnesses attempted to assist the victim they were unable to save him and the man died from his injuries. Mr. Martin reportedly disliked homeless people and despised their presence around the barber shop at which he worked, which may have been the result of a disorder causing Mr. Martin to be obsessed with cleanliness. This led him to hate the homeless because they were, in his view, dirtying up the streets. Mr. Martin had apparently been disciplined at work for harassing the man during a previous incident, causing Mr. Martin to lose his job. He apparently blamed the man for costing him his job and took the aforementioned actions against the man in order to get revenge.

This is a tragic case, but it illustrates an important principle of criminal law that many people often forget: sometimes those who are labeled as the offenders are “victims” as well. If actions like those described above seem heinous, extreme, or sadistic, it is because they are. However, many times these actions are motivated by a mental illness or disorder that causes the offender to rationalize or consider their actions in a different way than does the rest of society. Tennessee law recognizes this as well, and often allows the existence of such a disorder to play a role in the defendant’s punishment in cases such as these. For example, serious mental disorders can prevent the defendant from being competent to stand trial at all, while lesser disorders may serve as a mitigating factor at the defendant’s sentencing which allows the defendant to receive a more lenient sentence than the offense would normally dictate.

The court did not appear to give much weight to Mr. Martin’s disorder in this case, if one existed at all. However, every case, defendant, and disorder are different which leads the court in many cases to mitigate sentences for defendants such as those described in this article. Such defendants can maximize their chances for lenient treatment by consulting a skilled criminal defense attorney, who can assist them in establishing the defendant’s disorder and communicating it to the court.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/28/ben-matthew-martin-barber_n_555518.html