Drug Crime Category Archives — Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog Published by Florida Defense Lawyer — Hanlon Law

Florida Court Discusses the Right to a Speedy Trial

Hanlon Law, PA — Fri, 07 Nov 2025 16:35:14 +0000

Federal drug and firearm cases often hinge on the government’s ability to investigate efficiently while respecting the constitutional protections guaranteed to every defendant. When delays occur between indictment and arrest, courts must determine whether those delays undermine the integrity of the prosecution or violate fundamental rights. A recent ruling from a Florida court illustrates how judges address these concerns in complex narcotics investigations marked by long investigative gaps and disputed law enforcement efforts. If you are charged with a drug crime, it is critical to understand your rights, and you should speak with a Clearwater drug crime defense attorney who can help you protect your interests at every stage of the process.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, federal agents intercepted a package containing cocaine and orchestrated a controlled delivery to a Tampa address in September 2019. A woman received the package and later handed it to two men, identified as the driver and the defendant, who placed it in a vehicle and traveled to an Orlando residence.

Reportedly, the men opened the package later that evening. Agents set up surveillance around the residence and secured a warrant. After entering the home, agents located cocaine and other drug-related evidence. The driver was arrested at the scene, while the defendant avoided apprehension.

It is alleged that federal authorities made repeated attempts to locate the defendant beginning in early 2024. The court requested status updates, and the government reported that Homeland Security conducted recurring database checks and maintained ongoing investigative efforts. The defendant was eventually arrested in April 2025 on unrelated drug charges, at which point officials discovered the outstanding federal warrant.

Allegedly, the government charged the defendant in a five-count indictment involving conspiracy to import cocaine, conspiracy to distribute cocaine, aiding and abetting distribution, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The defendant sought dismissal of the indictment with prejudice, asserting that the multi-year delay violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial.

The Right to a Speedy Trial

The court began its analysis by recognizing that the more than five-year delay between indictment and arrest was sufficient to trigger a full constitutional inquiry under the governing speedy trial framework. While such a delay creates a presumption of prejudice, the presumption alone does not resolve the issue. The court therefore evaluated the remaining factors, which include the reasons for the delay and the defendant’s assertion of his rights.

In assessing the government’s justification, the court emphasized that law enforcement must show reasonable diligence rather than perfection. The government presented evidence that agents conducted national database checks using multiple identifiers, employed facial recognition searches, reviewed various information sources, and periodically conducted surveillance at the residence associated with the defendant’s family. These efforts were undermined by the defendant’s failure to update his driver’s license, his use of inaccurate or incomplete personal information, and his statements describing himself as homeless or unemployed. The court concluded that these circumstances made it difficult to locate the defendant despite genuine investigative efforts.

The court also noted that law enforcement measures resembled investigative steps previously deemed sufficient by appellate courts, including cases in which officers repeatedly checked crime databases and physically visited last-known addresses. Although additional investigative avenues may have been conceivable, the court found that the government pursued the defendant with adequate diligence throughout the relevant period.

Because the government’s efforts did not reflect negligence of a degree that would shift the burden toward establishing presumed prejudice, the defendant was required to show actual harm caused by the delay. The court found no such evidence. As a result, the defendant failed to meet the constitutional standard required for dismissal. The motion to dismiss the indictment was denied.

Consult a Skilled Clearwater Federal Criminal Defense Attorney

If you face federal drug charges or believe investigative delays may affect your constitutional protections, you should seek immediate legal advice. The experienced Clearwater federal criminal defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can evaluate your case and develop a strategy tailored to your circumstances. Contact Hanlon Law online or call 727-897-5413 to schedule a confidential consultation.

The post Florida Court Discusses the Right to a Speedy Trial appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Florida Court Discusses Anonymous Juries in Criminal Matters

Hanlon Law, PA — Wed, 06 Aug 2025 12:44:01 +0000

Federal criminal trials often raise high-stakes questions about fairness and constitutional rights. From how a jury is selected to how evidence is weighed at sentencing, each stage can shape the outcome of a case. When a defendant is accused of participating in a wide-reaching drug conspiracy, these issues become even more critical. A recent Florida decision highlights how courts balance trial errors against the broader record, illustrating the limits of what defendants can achieve on appeal in complex drug trafficking prosecutions. If you are charged with a drug crime, it is crucial to talk to a Clearwater drug crime defense attorney about what steps you can take to protect your interests.

Factual Allegations

It is reported that the defendant was indicted by a federal grand jury on multiple charges arising from his alleged participation in a multi-state marijuana trafficking operation. The indictment included numerous counts, including conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana, as well as possession with intent to distribute marijuana. He was also charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering, possessing a weapon in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and illegal reentry.

Allegedly, the prosecution maintained that the defendant and his codefendants coordinated shipments of marijuana and proceeds between California and Georgia, using various methods to conceal the illicit activity. The government also alleged that firearms were possessed in connection with the distribution scheme. The defendant pleaded guilty to the count of illegal reentry but denied involvement in the remaining charges, which proceeded to a jury trial.

It is alleged that prior to trial, the district court, on its own initiative, ordered that an anonymous jury be empaneled. Jurors were identified by numbers rather than names, though they disclosed limited background information during voir dire. The defendant objected, arguing that the measure undermined his presumption of innocence. The trial court explained that anonymity was justified because drug and money-laundering cases may generate public concern and potential interference. After deliberation, the jury convicted the defendant of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute less than 100 kilograms of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana.

Reportedly, the defendant sought jury instructions regarding the possibility of multiple conspiracies, contending that he had engaged in separate drug activity unrelated to the charged conspiracy. The trial court declined, instead instructing that a conviction required proof of the specific conspiracy described in the indictment. The defendant was ultimately sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. He appealed.

Grounds for Empaneling an Anonymous Jury

On appeal, the court considered whether the trial court erred by empaneling an anonymous jury without applying the recognized legal factors. The court noted that anonymity is an extraordinary measure, generally permitted only where there is evidence of risk to juror safety, likelihood of interference with judicial proceedings, or intense publicity. Here, the court found that the district court failed to analyze these factors properly, relying instead on generalized concerns about organized crime and weapons charges.

However, the court concluded that the error was harmless because three factors supporting anonymity were present: unindicted conspirators remained at large, the defendant had engaged in witness tampering, and he faced a lengthy potential sentence. Moreover, the trial judge gave jurors a neutral explanation for anonymity, thereby preserving the presumption of innocence.

The court also addressed the trial court’s refusal to instruct on multiple conspiracies. The court emphasized that such an instruction is warranted only if evidence could reasonably show that some defendants participated in distinct conspiracies unrelated to the one charged. Because the jury instructions already made clear that a conviction required proof of participation in the specific conspiracy alleged in the indictment, the refusal to give the additional instruction did not impair the defendant’s ability to present his defense. Any potential error was therefore harmless.

Talk to a Trusted Clearwater Drug Crime Defense Attorney

If you are facing charges for conspiracy, drug trafficking, or other federal crimes, the consequences can be severe. The experienced Florida drug crime defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can assess the charges against you and help you to seek the best outcome available. You can contact Hanlon Law through our online form or by calling 727-897-5413 to arrange a confidential consultation.

The post Florida Court Discusses Anonymous Juries in Criminal Matters appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Florida Court Discusses the Impact of Uncharged Conduct in Criminal Cases

Hanlon Law, PA — Wed, 08 Mar 2023 00:40:12 +0000

When it comes to sentencing people for crimes, federal courts can consider a range of factors, including uncharged conduct. Uncharged conduct refers to any criminal activity that the defendant may have engaged in but for which they have not been formally charged or convicted. In a recent ruling, a federal court sitting in Florida explained when and how the courts may evaluate uncharged conduct when assessing an appropriate penalty in a case in which the defendant appealed his sentence for drug crime convictions. If you are charged with a drug offense, it is smart to meet with a Clearwater drug crime defense attorney to assess your options for protecting your interests.

The Defendant’s Sentence

Allegedly, the defendant was charged with numerous drug trafficking and weapons crimes. He was convicted and sentenced to 210 months in prison. He appealed, arguing first that the court erred in assigning narcotics seized during an investigation to him as relevant conduct for his two counts of conviction for possession with intent to distribute and second, by attributing the drugs to him because they were not part of the same common scheme or plan or course of conduct as the offense of conviction.

The Implications of Uncharged Conduct in Federal Criminal Matters

Upon review, the court affirmed the defendant’s sentence. In doing so, it explained that a federal court might consider uncharged conduct in determining an appropriate sentence. This includes all acts and omissions the defendant committed during the commission of the crime, when preparing for the crime, or in the course of trying to avoid detection for the crime. In this case, the court found that the evidence was sufficient to attribute drugs found during the criminal investigation to the defendant for the purpose of sentencing under the relevant-conduct guideline.

Further, as the court explained, the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan provision dictates that, for offenses grouped under § 3D1.2(d), the defendant must be held accountable for all acts and omissions that were part of the same course of conduct, plan, or common scheme as the crime for which they are convicted.

Here, the court found that it was clear that relevant conduct may include uncharged conduct. As such, the court found that the trial court did not err in finding that the uncharged conduct, in this case, constituted the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the crimes for which the defendant was convicted and upheld his sentence.

Meet with a Seasoned Clearwater Attorney

While the government must prove a criminal defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the courts are permitted to consider uncharged conduct when sentencing people that have been convicted of drug crimes and other offenses. If you are charged with a drug offense, it is smart to speak to an attorney about your options. The seasoned Clearwater drug crime defense attorneys of Hanlon Law are proficient at helping people protect their reputations and rights, and if we represent you, we will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can contact Hanlon Law through the online form or by calling 727-897-5413 to set up a meeting.

The post Florida Court Discusses the Impact of Uncharged Conduct in Criminal Cases appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Florida Court Discusses Sentence Reductions Under the First Step Act

Hanlon Law, PA — Thu, 05 May 2022 13:38:10 +0000

In 2018, Congress enacted the First Step Act (the Act), which along with the Fair Sentencing Act, was a law designed to reduce the disparity between the penalties imposed on people convicted of crimes arising out of the possession and distribution of cocaine powder versus crack. Merely because a court possesses the power to reduce a sentence under the Act, however, does not mean that it is required to do so. This was demonstrated recently in a Florida case in which a defendant appealed the denial of his request for a sentence reduction under the Act. If you are charged with a drug crime, it is critical to understand your rights, and you should confer with a skillful Clearwater drug crime defense lawyer as soon as possible.

The History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant sought a reduction of his sentence pursuant to the Act. The trial court denied his request without conducting a hearing. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court’s decision constituted an abuse of discretion. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed the trial court ruling.

Sentence Reductions Under the First Step Act

Federal district courts have no inherent authority to modify or reduce sentences; instead, they may only do so when it is authorized by a statute or rule. For example, the Act explicitly authorizes the district courts to modify criminal sentences in certain circumstances. Prior to the Act, Congress enacted the Fair Sentencing Act, which increased the amount of drugs that would trigger statutory penalties in an effort to reduce the disparity in sentences for crack cocaine and powder cocaine.

The Act then made the statutory penalties enacted under the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive. While the Act provides that a court that imposed a sentence for a covered offense may reduce the sentence as if the Act was in effect at the time the offense was committed, no provisions of the Act compel a court to issue such reduced sentences. In other words, while district courts have the authority to reduce sentences under the Act, they are not required to do so.

In the subject case, the appellate court found that the trial court did not reduce its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to reduce his sentence under the Act. First, the appellate court noted that sentence reduction hearings were not criminal proceedings, and therefore the lack of a hearing did not violate the defendant’s rights. Further, the record reflected that the trial court evaluated the merits of the defendant’s claim. Thus, it affirmed the trial court ruling.

Meet with an Experienced Clearwater Criminal Defense Attorney

Drug crimes carry lengthy penalties, but there may be arguments a person convicted of a drug offense can assert in pursuit of a reduced sentence. If you are charged with selling or possessing illegal substances, it is smart to talk to a drug crime lawyer about your potential defenses. The experienced Clearwater attorneys of Hanlon Law are well-versed in what it takes to obtain successful outcomes in criminal matters, and if you hire us, we will advocate zealously on your behalf. You can contact Hanlon Law via the online form or by calling 727-897-5413 to set up a meeting.

The post Florida Court Discusses Sentence Reductions Under the First Step Act appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Florida Court Discusses Admissibility of Prior Bad Acts at Criminal Trials

Hanlon Law, PA — Tue, 03 Nov 2020 22:52:48 +0000

It is not uncommon for a person facing criminal charges to have a history of prior criminal activity. In the interest of providing all criminal defendants with a fair trial, however, the State typically must refrain from introducing evidence of prior crimes at trial. There are certain exceptions when evidence of prior bad acts is admissible, though, as discussed in a recent case in which the defendant appealed his conviction for drug charges. If you are charged with distributing narcotics or any other drug-related offense, it is prudent to speak to a knowledgeable Clearwater drug crime defense attorney to help you fight to protect your rights.

The Defendant’s Charges and Trial

It is reported that the defendant was charged with multiple drug crimes. During the trial, the prosecution referenced the defendant’s alleged use of a fake identity to rent an apartment during its opening statement. The jury ultimately convicted the defendant as charged, after which the defendant moved for a mistrial on multiple grounds, including the fact that the trial court permitted the prosecution to mention crimes the defendant allegedly committed but for which he was not charged. The trial court denied the defendant’s motions, after which he appealed. On appeal, the trial court’s ruling was affirmed.

Evidence of Prior Bad Acts

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, evidence regarding wrongs, bad acts, or other crimes that are introduced to demonstrate a person’s character for the purpose of proving that the person acted in accordance with that character on a particular occasion is inadmissible. Florida courts interpreting this exclusionary rule, however, have repeatedly held that evidence of criminal acts other than the charged offense may be admissible if it constitutes intrinsic evidence that is outside of the scope of the rule.

Evidence will be deemed intrinsic if it is an uncharged offense that arose out of the same act or series of acts as the charged crime and is either necessary to complete the story of the crime or is intricately entangled with the evidence pertaining to the charged offense. Further, evidence will be intricately entangled with the evidence of the charged offense if it creates a natural and integral part of the witness’s recollection of the circumstances surrounding the offenses for which the defendant was charged.

In the subject case, the defendant’s use of a fake identity to rent the property where he stored illegal narcotics was intricately entangled with his alleged drug crimes and, therefore, was not inadmissible. Further, the court gave a limiting instructing to the jury, noting that the defendant was only on trial for narcotics charges. Thus, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

Speak with an Experienced Clearwater Attorney

If you are accused of a drug crime, it is important to speak to an attorney to understand what evidence the State may try to use against you at trial. Attorney William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is an experienced Clearwater drug crime defense attorney who can advise you of your rights and help you to seek the best outcome available under the facts of your case. You can reach Mr. Hanlon by calling 727-897-5413 or using the form online to set up a conference regarding your case.

The post Florida Court Discusses Admissibility of Prior Bad Acts at Criminal Trials appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Florida Court Discusses Permissible Terms of Probation in Drug Crime Cases

Hanlon Law, PA — Mon, 08 Jun 2020 22:02:04 +0000

When a defendant is convicted of a crime and sentenced to probation, the court has broad leeway in determining what probationary terms are appropriate. While the court’s discretion is broad, it is not unbounded, however, and any conditions of probation must be reasonably related to the crime for which the defendant was convicted, as discussed in a recent Florida case in which the defendant objected to the terms of his probation after being convicted for multiple drug crimes. If you were charged with a drug offense or any other crime in Clearwater, it is wise to meet with a knowledgeable Clearwater drug crime defense attorney to discuss your case and potential defenses.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with and convicted of multiple crimes, including possession of drug paraphernalia, cannabis, and methamphetamines. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 270 days, followed by probation. The terms of his probation required him to submit to a test for sexually transmitted diseases. The defendant appealed, in part, to challenge the test.

Conditions of Probation Under Florida Law

Under Florida law, a sentencing court has broad discretion in determining what special conditions to impose for a probation sentence, but the discretion is not without bounds. Instead, for a condition to be valid, it must be reasonably related to the rehabilitation of the defendant. In other words, it must have a relationship to the crime for which the offender was convicted, it must relate to the conduct which in and of itself is criminal, and it must forbid or require conduct that is reasonably related to future criminality.

In the subject case, the court found that the requirement that the defendant had to undergo a test for sexually transmitted diseases as a term of his probation failed all three aspects of the relatedness test. First, the court noted that he was convicted of drug crimes and of driving with a suspended license, which were not crimes of a sexual nature. Further, the court explained that it was not a crime for a person with a sexually transmitted disease to engage in sexual activity with someone else.

Lastly, the court explained that it was not reasonable to believe that submitting to a test for sexually transmitted diseases would have any impact on the defendant’s likelihood to commit criminal acts in the future. In sum, the court could not determine what purpose, if any, the imposition of a test for sexually transmitted diseases as a requirement of the defendant’s probation was meant to serve. Thus, the court removed the condition from the defendant’s probation.

Meet with an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney

If you live in Clearwater and are charged with a drug offense, it is critical to understand what penalties you may face if you are convicted and what steps you can take to obtain a just result. Attorney William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is an experienced Clearwater drug crime defense attorney who can advise you of your rights and assist you in pursuing the best result available under the facts of your case. Mr. Hanlon can be contacted through the online form or at 727-897-5413 to schedule a free and confidential consultation.

The post Florida Court Discusses Permissible Terms of Probation in Drug Crime Cases appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Federal Court Clarifies What Prior Convictions Count Toward Career Offender Status Under Florida Law

Hanlon Law, PA — Wed, 02 Jan 2019 17:18:08 +0000

In the Florida criminal court system, a career offender designation can result in increased jail time. There are specific criteria that must be met before a defendant can be designated a career offender, and an improper designation can result in unjust penalties.

Recently, a federal court issued an opinion clarifying what convictions count toward a defendant’s career offender status under the Florida sentencing guidelines. If you are a resident of Clearwater with a prior criminal history and are currently charged with a crime, you should meet with a seasoned Clearwater criminal defense attorney to develop a plan that will provide you with a strong chance of a good outcome under the circumstances surrounding your charges.

Defendant’s Prior Convictions

The defendant had previously been convicted of two counts of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and one count of robbery. He was subsequently convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, possession of controlled substances with intent to distribute, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The court designated the defendant as a career offender under Florida’s sentencing guidelines and sentenced him to 120 months in prison. The defendant then appealed his sentence, arguing that he was improperly designated a career offender. On appeal, the court affirmed his sentence.

Career Offender Designation

The court clarified that a defendant will be designated as a career offender if at the time of sentencing he or she is at least 18 years old, the subject crime is a violent crime or a controlled substance crime, and he or she has two or more prior convictions of violent crimes or controlled substance crimes. Here, the defendant argued that his prior convictions should not count toward his career offender status on the grounds that marijuana is not a controlled substance and robbery is not a violent crime, because it does not require physical force.

The court rejected the defendant’s position that because Florida’s definition of marijuana differed from the definition under the Federal Controlled Substances Act, a conviction for possession of marijuana could not be considered a conviction of a controlled substance. Rather, the court held that Florida law clearly states that convictions for possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute are controlled substance offenses for purposes of sentencing. Additionally, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that robbery was not a violent crime, noting that robbery requires the use of force or violence. Thus, the court affirmed the defendant’s sentence.

Consult a Seasoned Criminal Defense Attorney in Clearwater

If you live in Clearwater and are facing criminal charges, it is in your best interest to consult a skilled criminal defense attorney as soon as possible to help you formulate a defense. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is an experienced Clearwater criminal defense attorney who will thoroughly advise you of your options and help you decide the best course of action based upon the facts surrounding your charges. We can be contacted at 727-897-5413 or via our online form to set up a meeting.

More Blog Posts:

Florida Court Holds a Defendant Convicted of Crime of Violence May be Entitled to Have His Sentence Re-Evaluated Due to Recent Case Rulings December 3, 2018, Clearwater and St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog

Florida Prosecutors Can’t Retry Botched Drug Deal Case July 30, 2018, Clearwater and St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog

Post-Fight Evidence Gets Green Light in Florida Battery Case February 2, 2018, Clearwater and St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog

The post Federal Court Clarifies What Prior Convictions Count Toward Career Offender Status Under Florida Law appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Lawyer Must Inform Defendant About Possible Deportation, Says Florida Court

Hanlon Law, PA — Wed, 29 Aug 2018 20:28:35 +0000

If you are not a citizen of the United States, and you are convicted of a crime, it may result in being deported back to your home country. This is clearly a notable consequence, and lawyers are supposed to advise their clients of this if it is a possibility. If you are charged with a crime in Florida, it is crucial that you have a knowledgeable defense attorney to advise you about all the potential consequences of any course of action you may choose. United States law requires that criminal defendants facing incarceration have competent counsel. If a defendant can prove that their counsel was not competent then they may be granted a new trial.

Facts of the Case

In this appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida discussed the requirements for defendants facing possible deportation. The defendant in this case was charged with possession of a controlled substance with the intent to sell or deliver. With the assistance of his counsel, he agreed to a plea agreement. The defendant pled no contest to the charges. Thus, an adjudication of guilt was withheld and he was given 18 months of probation.

Continue reading →

The post Lawyer Must Inform Defendant About Possible Deportation, Says Florida Court appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Drug Evidence Thrown Out After Illegal Search in Florida

Hanlon Law, PA — Mon, 20 Aug 2018 21:25:42 +0000

If you are caught with drugs, you may think that you should just plead guilty and accept the consequences. However, depending on your situation, this may not be the best idea. Sometimes, the evidence against you may have been found during an illegal search. If the police perform an improper search on you, your home, or vehicle, the evidence gathered from that search may be inadmissible in court. If the State’s whole case is based around this evidence, then the charges may be thrown out entirely. A skilled Clearwater criminal defense attorney can help you decide the best strategy for your case.

The Circumstances of the Evidence

A man was charged with possession of cocaine after the police found crack cocaine in a takeout food container the man was holding. The officer testified that the defendant was standing on a street corner around 7:30 a.m. When the officer drove by in an unmarked vehicle, he stated that the defendant glanced at him with a “deer in headlights” look. Immediately after noticing the officer, he dropped the fork he was using, along with another small packet, into the container. The police officer instructed his partner to detain the defendant and then he took the container. The container held grits and a white, semi-waxy square that contained crack cocaine.

Continue reading →

The post Drug Evidence Thrown Out After Illegal Search in Florida appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Prejudicial Police Testimony Deemed Harmless Error in Florida Drug Case

Hanlon Law, PA — Thu, 09 Aug 2018 20:57:02 +0000

In a criminal trial, there is only certain evidence that a prosecutor is allowed to present in order to prove that the defendant is guilty. One kind of evidence that judges may exclude from trial is evidence that will prejudice the jury. In this context, that means that the jury will be predisposed to find the defendant guilty whether or not the evidence is sufficient to prove guilt. This helps protect the defendant from being found guilty due to assumptions about the kind of person the defendant is, rather than their actual actions.Some evidence that is in danger of being prejudicial may be excluded before trial. For example, a previous alleged victim of the defendant can be barred from testifying. However, when the trial is happening sometimes things will happen in the moment. During the trial, sometimes a witness may say something prejudicial before the judge stops them. What happens then?

One option is for the judge to declare a mistrial. In Florida, if there is a reasonable possibility that prejudicial testimony influenced a guilty verdict, the defendant may be granted a new trial. There are many complicated rules about which evidence is and is not allowed into a criminal trial. That is why it is so important to contact a skilled Clearwater criminal defense attorney as soon as possible if you or a loved one have been charged with a crime.

Facts of the Case

Continue reading →

The post Prejudicial Police Testimony Deemed Harmless Error in Florida Drug Case appeared first on Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog.