Articles Tagged with defense lawyer Fort Lauderdale

Fort Lauderdale is a prime destination for tourists from across the country and around the world. It’s estimated more than 120 million people flock to Florida each year – many making their way to the Southeast coast. Unfortunately, if you’re arrested on vacation in Fort Lauderdale (most often for DUI, domestic violence, drunk and disorderly, solicitation, and drug possession), your good time can quickly morph into a legal nightmare. Our Fort Lauderdale criminal defense lawyers can help.Fort Lauderdale criminal defense lawyer

How you proceed will depend to some extent on the severity of the crime and the specifics of the case. Chances are, if you’re arrested for a misdemeanor, you will not be held for any extended period of time in jail, but you may be expected to return. It is possible that a lawyer can resolve your case for you without you having to return, but again, it will depend on the exact circumstances. It’s also possible that the consequences of any conviction will follow you in your own district, particularly if there are any supervised release requirements.

If you’re arrested for a felony (which are more serious charges), you may expect your time in jail to be a bit longer, and your legal fees, court costs, and penalties to be more substantial.

It is important to keep in mind that simply going home will not make the charge go away. It is critical to consult with an experienced, local Fort Lauderdale criminal defense lawyer who will offer sound legal advise, ensure your rights are protected, and fight for the best possible outcome.

Some factors to consider following a Fort Lauderdale arrest on vacation: Continue reading

The Florida Supreme Court has sided with state prosecutors over a criminal defendant in a due process dispute that created conflict between Florida appellate courts. fire1

In the case of Patterson v. Florida, the state high court sided with the 1st District Court of Appeals, which found no due process violation in a case where testimony was admitted from state experts who physically examined evidence prior to its destruction, where a defense expert didn’t have the same opportunity. The 1st DCA had ruled it was only a due process violation if the destruction of evidence happened in bad faith. However, the 4th DCA, when faced with the same issue in Lancaster v. State, a 1984 case, the court had ruled that where destroyed evidence was potentially useful to the defense, this is a due process violation, regardless of whether the destruction was in bad faith.

The state high court in reaching this conclusion relied on the 1988 U.S. Supreme Court case of Arizona v. Youngblood, which held the state’s loss or destruction of evidence that’s potentially useful to the defense violates due process only when done in bad faith. In the Patterson case, the court ruled there was no due process violation because there was no evidence of bad faith.  Continue reading

Contact Information