Saving Clients over $100,000 in Fines

Supreme Court and the Eighth Amendment

Since the Supreme Court unanimously decided the Eighth Amendment applies to the States and not just Federal cases, prohibiting excessive fines and fees especially when State agencies seek to seize property or other assets from individuals charged or convicted of a crime, Boeheim Freeman Law has been able to reduce or eliminate over $100,000 in fines for our clients.

The case before the Supreme Court, Timbs v. Indiana involved the seizure of a $42,000 Land Rover SUV from Tyson Timbs, who was arrested in 2015 for selling heroin to undercover police officers. He pled guilty and was sentenced to one year of house arrest and five years of probation. The Court suggests that it became excessive when the State of Indiana seized his Land Rover, which was purchased with his father's life insurance payout, not with the proceeds of drug sales. The State claimed that they could seize the vehicle because it had been used to commit a crime.

Rule 8 Hearings

At Boeheim Freeman Law, we have been moving the courts for Rule 8 Hearings on all plea deals. This is a hearing where the Judge inquires of the Defendant what physical injuries or ailments would prevent them from working. The Judge also inquires as to the Defendants ability to pay fines and costs due to indigence and pre-existing financial obligations. It is then determined whether, under the circumstances, the Defendant can pay or the fines would be considered excessive on-going punishment.

Conflict of Interest

Local government uses fines and fees as a means to raise revenue, and that creates a perverse conflict of interest between the bureaucracy and residents of the community. Timbs v. Indiana points out how ridiculous overly burdensome fines and civil asset forfeiture can be when abused. Many times the fines and the confiscation of property only hurts the families left behind when a defendant gets convicted and goes to prison. This inevitably propagates a cycle of crime, when a family is left with very few options and bills to pay.

Supreme Court Has Spoken

The Supreme Court and Justice Ginsberg have spoken: Excessive fines are unconstitutional, and civil forfeiture is an additional fine to those who are convicted. If you have been served with a civil forfeiture in connection with a criminal case, please give Boeheim Freeman Law a call at 918-884-7791 and let us help you fight for your constitutional rights.

Oklahoma Courts Step Into the 21st Century

Video Conferencing in the Courtroom

The Oklahoma Legislature has recently taken a big step, with a new statute that allows videoconferencing technology to be used in the Oklahoma District Courts for hearings up to, during, and after trial in both civil and criminal cases.  Prior to this, it was unlawful for videoconferencing to be used in the District Courts of Oklahoma.  There are several minimum requirements; here are a few:

• Everyone who is directly involved, i.e. the attorneys, witnesses, judge, defendant, court reporter, and interpreter, can see and be seen and hear and be heard.

•  Participants shall be able to see, hear, and communicate with each other simultaneously;

• Participants shall be able to see, hear, and otherwise observe any physical evidence or exhibit presented;

• Video and sound quality shall be adequate to allow participants to observe demeanor and nonverbal communications and to clearly hear what is taking place to the same extent as if they were present in the courtroom;

• The location from which the trial judge is presiding shall be accessible to the public to the same extent as the proceeding would be if not conducted by videoconference;

• When feasible, a party and the party's attorney should be allowed to communicate privately off the record by use of a private communication facility (cellphone, landline, facsimile, Skype, etc.) during the proceeding, or during a break. The court is not required to provide a private communication facility if none is available.

There are also some exceptions; here they are:

• Situations where its use might create undue prejudice;

• When a person is available, but simply does not wish to be in the courtroom;

• Convenience vs the Value of the Testimony;

• Whether its use would interfere with the full ability to cross-examine a witness;

• In a circumstance where the gravity of being in the actual courtroom will impress upon the witness the importance of telling the truth;

• Whether a physical liberty or other fundamental interest is at stake in the proceeding;

• Whether the judge is comfortable with his or her ability to effectively control what is happening at the remote location;

• Whether a distortion in the technology causes those present in the courtroom to reflect negatively upon the person at the remote location;

• Whether use of the videoconferencing technology will diminish the integrity and fairness of a proceeding in a particular instance;

• Whether the person proposed to appear by videoconferencing presents a significant security risk to transport and present personally in the courtroom;

• The necessity of waivers and stipulations between the parties regarding the use of videoconferencing during a proceeding;

• And anything else that the judge might think is relevant.    

The party that wishes to use videoconferencing technology for the purpose of witness testimony must submit a motion stating their intent at least thirty (30) days prior to the proceeding.  Any party that objects to this must submit their objection in writing within ten (10) days of the filing of the original notice.  

So, what are the advantages of using this new technology in the courtroom?  The cost benefit is particularly relevant to those needing an interpreter or court reporter where none is available to be physically present, and the time, effort, and finances that would be required to get someone to be physically present would be restrictive.  This is particularly true of poorly served and rural areas that lack the same resources as larger metropolitan areas.  

However, there is no rule stating that courts must employ this new technology, and since the initial cost to install the equipment and training would presumably be substantial, it is likely that the areas that are poorly served now, will not be able to afford the equipment that is necessary to meet the requirements set out in the statute.  Furthermore, the statute does not specify who is supposed to pay for the installation and maintenance of the equipment.  Is it the County Treasury?  Is it the State?  Is it the Court Fund?

So, when would the videoconferencing technology be most valuable? Obviously, when used for expert witness testimony.  The ability to bring in the testimony of a nationally, or even internationally, renowned expert without having to pay travel costs would be an enormous cost savings for either side of a litigation.  As mentioned above, the ability to bring in an interpreter for unique and specific languages and dialects, would also provide witnesses and defendants the ability to understand and be understood.  This is not just important, but a Constitutional right.

What about the risks?  Clearly, it is difficult to tell when someone is lying.  Most people find it difficult to tell when they are face to face with someone.  Seeing and hearing them over a video screen will only make that more difficult. Considering that a big part of a jury’s job is to determine the credibility and reliability of each witness, this knew technology leap could get in the way of justice.  The level of personal separation videoconferencing technology provides has the potential to reduce the impact and gravity of the proceedings, creating an insulation or barrier to the stress and impact of a tough and vigorous cross-examination, harming the truth-finding process of witness confrontation.  Furthermore, there are no security measures in place that would ensure that the remote location remains pristine and free from influence or bias that could taint witness testimony.  It is feasible that a person could stand out of view of the camera and coaches a witness without the court’s knowledge.

Technology has invaded every part of our lives.  It has increased the quantity of communication, but not necessarily the quality.  There are efficiencies that would be created for the court system, but for each benefit there comes a possible risk.  So, what stands in the way of this technology leap?  The greatest barrier to this technological leap may be the fact that it requires financial and procedural investment, and the legal world tends to resist investment and resists procedural change even more.

Author: Lauren N. Stanley

Is this justice?

The DA's office failed to prosecute the father, and laid all the blame on the mother. The lead investigator admitted that the investigation was influenced by the initial statements made by the parents, but the father then told the jury that he lied not once, not twice, but three times to police. Is this justice?

Fox 23 News

Jury Trial - Not Guilty

Hard fought trial results in a Not Guilty Verdict

Brian Boeheim and Ciera Freeman successfully defend this young man who was facing decades in prison.

Tulsa Man Acquitted Of Rape, Sexual Assault: The Latest

A Tulsa man is making plans for the future after a jury found him not guilty of rape and sexual assault.

FOX23.COM

Robbery in Oklahoma

If you are accused of robbery, there could be very significant penalties at stake. While most theft crimes are considered property crimes, robbery is considered a violent crime against the person.  Depending on the type of robbery with which you are charged, you could be facing up to life in prison.

What is Robbery?

Someone who discovers their property missing may say they have been “robbed.”  This is actually larceny or burglary.  While larceny and burglary generally depend upon stealth, robbery is about the force or fear used to commit the crime.  Robbery is defined by Oklahoma law as “a wrongful taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear” (21 O.S. § 791).  The state divides robbery into several classifications, including first degree, second degree, conjoint, and armed robbery.

First Degree Robbery

Defined in 21 O.S. § 797, first degree robbery occurs under one or more of four specific circumstances:

1.    inflicts serious bodily injury upon the person;

2.    threatens a person with immediate serious bodily injury;

3.    intentionally puts a person in fear of immediate serious bodily injury; or

4.    commits or threatens to commit a felony upon the person.

First degree robbery is a felony punishable by a minimum of 10 years in prison. It is also an “85 percent crime,” under O.S. 21 § 13.1, a person convicted of this crime must to serve a minimum of 85 percent of the sentence before the possibility of parole.  With that said, there is case law that brings the minimum down to 5 years, but judicial notice should be invoked.

Second Degree Robbery

Second degree robbery does not carry the same requirement that the force results in serious bodily injury or that the fear is the intentional threat of serious bodily injury.  Second degree robbery is a lesser offense than first degree robbery, and it is not an “85 percent crime”.  Robbery in the second degree brings a possible sentence of up to 10 years in prison.

Conjoint Robbery

Conjoint robbery, or robbery committed by two or more people conspiring or acting together to accomplish the robbery is a serious felony where each person involved faces 5 to 50 years in prison.  Like first degree robbery, conjoint robbery is an “85 percent crime”.

Armed Robbery

Robbery or attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon or imitation firearm (21 O.S. § 801) carries a minimum sentence of 5 years in prison.  It is important to note that this law also includes failed attempts.  It does not matter if the gun was not loaded, or even if the “firearm” used was a fake.  Because the motive behind the use of an unloaded or imitation gun is still “force or fear,” it is considered armed robbery even with a toy gun.  Robbery or attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon or imitation firearm is an “85 percent crime”.  

Robbery is a Serious Felony

Robbery charges are very serious and the DA’s office prosecutes these cases aggressively.  You or your loved one could be facing decades in prison, mandatory minimum sentencing, and even registration with law enforcement for placement on the Oklahoma Violent Offender Registry.  Call us today at 918-884-7791 to discuss how we can defend you or your loved one from a Robbery charge.