Choosing the right defense:

For every type of criminal charge or offense, there are specific types of affirmative defenses that may be applicable. For example, if a person charged with stealing an object claims to have a valid ownership interest in that object, he may assert a claim of right defense likewise a person charged with assault may claim he acted in lawful self-defense. An experienced criminal defense lawyer is well-versed in all potential suitable defenses as they apply to the charge that confronts their client. Sometimes a client is charged with an offense that includes a number of specific elements. It is possible some of these elements can be proven and some cannot. In that event an experienced criminal defense lawyer may be able to negotiate an agreement or make an argument to the Judge for what is called a lesser included offense or a reduced charge. For example, a client may be charged with the felony offense of second degree burglary which carries the prospect of being sent to prison. Second degree burglary entails that the charged individual entered unlawfully into a home or business with the intent to commit a crime, usually stealing, while within. However, even if the police can show an unauthorized entry, and even find the client inside the premises, they still may be unable to prove the requisite intent to commit a crime while within necessary to make a submissible case of second degree burglary. In that event an experienced attorney can make the argument that the proper disposition is to reduce the charge to the misdemeanor offense of trespassing which is a far less serious offense. Finally, an experienced defense attorney can rely on the mandates provided by the Missouri and United States Constitution that the State must prove a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if an affirmative defense or lesser included offense does not present itself, one can always argue there is not sufficient evidence to convict of the crime charged. The standard of proof in a criminal case is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard of proof in American jurisprudence. Often, even if there is some proof to support the charge, the Judge may dismiss the action if the level of proof doesn’t rise to the level required by the Constitution.

Right to remain silent:

Frequently, police officers may have a hunch or suspicion that a person has been involved in criminal activity but do not have any solid evidence to confirm their suspicion. As a consequence they often make contact with that person and ask them if they will come speak with them regarding the matter. This is a tactic police officers employ for the sole purpose of trying to extract a confession to confirm their suspicion. Speaking to a police officer or detective, especially without an attorney, is in my opinion the single greatest mistake most individuals make if they are the target of a police investigation. Everyone sees police shows on television where there is a discussion about the officer reading an individual his rights but it is surprising to me how many individuals so carelessly waive these rights and provide law enforcement incriminating evidence. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees your right not to be compelled to speak to a police officer if you so choose. If you do choose to cooperate with law enforcement you have an absolute right to have an attorney present who can carefully monitor the contact and prevent you from incriminating yourself. You should always keep in mind the police officer’s objective. He is doing his best to make a case against you and find evidence in the way of a confession or admission to enable him to do so. They are typically not interested in hearing your version of the story if it doesn’t fit into their notion of what has transpired. I firmly believe you should NEVER speak with a police officer without an attorney present if you are the target of an investigation and the Constitution guarantees you that right. If a police officer ever tells you failing cooperate with him will result in your arrest, this is likely a bluff. If he had enough evidence to give him probable cause to arrest you he would have done so.

Protection of Constitutional Rights:

Often, individuals charged with criminal offenses may receive relief in the Courts if it can be shown their Constitutional rights have been violated. The United States and Missouri Constitutions provide all of us with basic fundamental rights that can be violated by overzealous police officers whose only interest is making a case against someone as quickly or easily as possible. If the Courts view police action as unconstitutional, evidence discovered that might tend to incriminate someone might not be admissible at their trial. The exclusionary rule provides that evidence obtained in violation of one’s Constitutional rights cannot be used as evidence against them at trial. A common example of this is when a police officer shows up at one’s home requesting a search of the home without a search warrant. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires a police officer must have a search warrant signed by a Judge upon his belief probable cause exists that criminal contraband will be found on the premises requested to be searched. However, frequently police officers try to circumvent this requirement, knowing they do not have the requisite probable cause that would convince a judge to sign off on the warrant, and conduct a search anyway. An experienced criminal defense attorney under these circumstances will file a Motion to Suppress Evidence asking the Court to find the officers’ conduct unlawful and unconstitutional and asking the Judge not admit potentially incriminating evidence into the record. The same principal applies when a police officer fails to properly advise an individual of his Miranda warnings before taking an incriminating statement or confession. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that one have a right to remain silent and not answer questions from police officers without a lawyer present. If this is not properly done, an experienced criminal defense lawyer will file a Motion to Suppress the confession and exclude it from being admitted into evidence. We have represented numerous individuals who have had their felony or misdemeanor cases dismissed because they have benefited from the exclusionary rule when the Courts find police conduct to be unconstitutional.