Make Payment
Call Today
(952) 913-1421
Call Today
(952) 913-1421

Category: Criminal Defense

Robbery mistrial after jury member talks with father

The cornerstone of the criminal justice system is a fair trial. Everyone in Minnesota who is facing criminal charges should only be convicted on evidence presented at trial, not because the charges are disturbing or because a member of the jury has a “feeling” about the defendant. There are numerous rules and regulations about how members of the jury and other parties must act while a case is going on, and if someone doesn’t follow those rules, there is a risk that the trial will no longer be fair.

Plymouth man charged with theft by swindle of more than $100,000

In a recent story coming out of Anoka County, a 59-year-old man from Plymouth has been arrested and charged with stealing more than $100,000 from a Blaine car dealership. He faces one charge of theft by swindle and could spend up to 20 years in prison if convicted. He may also be ordered to pay $100,000 in fines, too.

Man jokes about a bomb in his pocket, faces criminal charges

When Minnesotans are flying out of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, they know they are in for long lines, intrusive body scans and potentially a pat down. While many of us feel frustrated by the amount of security at airports these days, most of us know that it is not a good idea to make a joke about a bomb. Unfortunately, one young man, probably overwhelmed by all of the security, told a Transportation Security Administration agent that he had a bomb in his pocket.

Minnesota DWI license issues go further than the driver’s license

Many Minnesotans may recognize that a charge for driving while impaired will potentially have a significant impact of the person’s ability to drive. While a person accused of drunk driving can expect their driving privilege to be revoked, the license revocation may be challenged in a civil hearing apart from the DWI criminal case, if the driver timely files a legal challenge to the revocation.

Minnesota, federal courts haven’t addressed new police technique

Can police use your cellphone and cellphone towers to determine your location? If so, do police officers need to get a warrant based on probable cause before they do? These are the questions that one lawsuit hoped to solve for the whole country, but the Supreme Court of the United States has declined to hear the case. Since Minnesota courts and the federal court responsible for Minnesota have not yet heard the issue either, it remains to be seen whether this is permissible under criminal law.

Supreme Court leaves defendants between a rock and a hard place

It’s the time of year when the Supreme Court of the United States issues its decisions and nearly every year a few of them have some serious ramifications on criminal defense. Anyone in Minneapolis who read about the ruling in Salinas v. Texas knows that this will have a negative effect on criminal law and defendants’ rights.

New Supreme Court ruling vastly alters criminal defense

In what will likely become a landmark criminal defense case, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling today that allows police to obtain and analyze an arrestee’s DNA as part of routine booking procedures. The majority opinion considered a DNA cheek swab to be similar to fingerprinting or taking booking photographs. The dissent, however, was very vocal that while this may solve some crimes, it is still invasive.

Man wrongfully sent to prison for 9 years on false confession

While our blog has talked extensively about how important it is for Minneapolis and St. Paul residents charged with a crime to seek out the help of an experienced criminal defense lawyer, the following story shows just what can go wrong if you do not ask for a lawyer immediately after being arrested. Though the story does not happen in Minnesota, it is important reminder that it is essential to understand your rights and the legal ramifications of talking to police.

Warrantless DWI Tests Tossed in McNeely Opinion by Supreme Court

Today the United States Supreme Court decided the DWI case of McNeely v. Missouri. We have previously blogged on this case several times. In summary, the high Court said that police cannot take a DWI blood sample from a driver without his consent where they also did not have a warrant. This means that Warrantless DWI Tests are unconstitutional, illegal, and should not be allowed. Thus any DWI test evidence gathered without a warrant should be tossed out by a Judge.

CATEGORIES