criminal defense attorney Fort Lauderdale

October 28, 2018

Florida Supreme Court Rejects Daubert Expert Testimony Standard

By The Law Offices of Richard Ansara, P.A.

In a split 4-3 decision, the Florida Supreme Court soundly rejected the Daubert standard of evidence for expert witness testimony – the one used in federal courts and adopted by many state courts, in favor of the less stringent Frye standard, the older method that prior to 2013 had been the standard in the Sunshine State.

What does this mean for Fort Lauderdale criminal defendants? It will be relevant both for them as well as for plaintiffs in civil cases. The Daubert standard establishes a rule of evidence (found in Federal Rules of Evidence 702) that pertains to the admissibility of an expert witness’s testimony, stemming from the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. It holds that a witness can only be qualified as an expert if he or she has the knowledge, skill, experience, training or education that is considered a baseline to form that opinion. Testimony must meet a specific list of criteria, and the judge acts as the gatekeeper. Those whose opinions fail to meet that proof burden can be excluded.

Frye, meanwhile, is less stringent, considered a general acceptance test for scientific evidence requiring that one’s expert opinion, if based on a scientific technique, can only be admitted where that technique is “generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific community.” Continue reading

July 22, 2018

Amid Immigration Crackdown, Strong Criminal Defense More Important Than Ever

By The Law Offices of Richard Ansara, P.A.

There is an inherent interplay between criminal and immigration law that has recently come under an intense spotlight since the Trump administration has taken a hard line on immigration policies,. This includes aggressive action by immigration authorities to initiate proceedings against those with decades-old criminal convictions for non-violent crimes. In the past, that usually involved recent convictions for felonies – violent crimes in particular – and typically only undocumented immigrants.

However, as the Miami Herald reported recently, even documented immigrants, such as those holding green cards who have green cards and are long-time residents, aren’t immune. In fact, this is now policy per new guidelines passed earlier this month by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services have indicated that immigrants who abuse any program that is related to acceptance of public benefits can be brought before an immigration court and subject to removal if evidence of fraud or willful misrepresentation is established. Under this new guidelines, immigration officials actually have expanded authority to issue Notices to Appear, which is what starts the whole deportation process.

Since the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case of Padilla v. Kentucky, criminal defense lawyers have been required to advise non-citizen clients about the possible immigration consequences that may result from acceptance of a guilty plea. Failure to do so amounts to a violation of one’s Sixth Amendment guarantee of effective counsel. A violation on this front can be grounds for post-conviction relief, including possibly a modification of one’s criminal sentence or a new trial. Continue reading

October 9, 2016

Prosecutorial Misconduct by Withholding Evidence Now a Felony in California

By The Law Offices of Richard Ansara, P.A.

Prosecutors in California who withhold exculpatory evidence or tamper with evidence in a criminal case will now face felony charges themselves. The recent law, signed by that state’s Governor Jerry Brown, allows a penalty of up to three years’ prison time for prosecutors who withhold evidence that defendants could use to exonerate them. Before this law passed, such actions were criminal, but they were only considered misdemeanor crimes.

Officials say the measure was necessary in light of a growing number of cases wherein people have been wrongfully convicted at least in part because prosecutors abused their power and position. The measure follows a high-profile case in Orange County where a prosecutors in a murder case was found to have repeatedly violated defendant’s rights by not turning over key evidence. Although the court overseeing the matter did not find the prosecutor had engaged in willful misconduct, he was nonetheless removed from the case.

There are allegations from the public defender’s office in that region that corrections officers have for years violated inmates’ rights with an illegal jailhouse informant program that prosecutors tried to hide. This involved using the testimony of fellow inmates in exchange for leniency in their pending cases – while not disclosing this deal at trial. A number of high-profile criminal cases have collapsed as a result. Prosecutors are now saying if the law applies to them, it should apply to defense lawyers too. Continue reading

May 31, 2016

Miami Woman Kills Teen Burglar, Charges Mulled

By The Law Offices of Richard Ansara, P.A.

The state attorney is considering whether to charge a Miami woman with murder after she gunned down a burglar on her property.

Florida has one of the strongest “Castle Doctrine” laws on the books, which allow homeowners to use lethal force against those who unlawfully enter their homes. The law does require that in order to threaten or use deadly force, the resident/ homeowner has to believe such force is necessary to either prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to herself or someone else or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

In this case, the 54-year-old homeowner wasn’t at the time of the burglar’s initial entry, but rather was alerted to the break-in by a home security camera. She reportedly returned home and searched the property room-to-room, until she spotted the teen climbing out a window. She told investigators there was a confrontation and she shot him. Further, police were reportedly on their way. Continue reading