Colorado Springs Criminal Lawyer Blog

By Staff Attorney
The Gasper Law Group, PLLC

In the modern age, most Americans rely on social media to stay connected with friends and family. Social media is an outlet for personal expression and often people post their deepest fears and secrets for the world to see. Unfortunately, sometimes the ease of using social media outlets for self expression leads to posting items that might best be kept private. Job recruiters warn employees entering the job market against posting items that could influence prospective employers. Politicians and celebrities have lost credibility and careers over items posted on social media sites. Just look at the controversy currently surrounding New York Congressman Anthony Weiner who allegedly sent out a Twitter stream with a lewd photograph attached. Regardless of the outcome of any investigation into how the incident occurred, Mr. Weiner’s career will be forever linked with this allegation.

While these incidents are well documented in the American mind, what many people do not consider is the impact social media can have on pending litigation. In the domestic litigation arena, when the mud starts flying in the courtroom, postings on websites can come back to haunt a party to a case. Items posted on a Facebook or My Space page can be used to show that someone is an unfit parent. Postings disparaging the other parent can be used to demonstrate threats or an inability to foster a loving relationship between the children and the other parent (an important consideration for the Court in determining which parent should have the majority of parenting time with the children.) Bragging about purchases like new cars or partying can come up in litigation to show that a party isn’t obeying Court orders not to use marital assets during a divorce.

Continue reading " Facebook and My Space and Twitter, Oh My! " »

By Tonya L. Holliday
Senior Paralegal
The Gasper Law Group

This was the recent headline in the Casey Anthony jury trial. So you’re asking yourself, “If she’s innocent, why wouldn’t she want to testify in her own defense?” Casey Anthony was accused of murdering her child, Caylee. One might think if she was innocent she would want to shout it from the rooftops instead of sitting stoically next to her attorney as he stands in front of those jury members and says, “The defense rests.” However, there are several good reasons why defense attorneys may counsel their clients to not testify.

In preparing for a jury trial an attorney and the Defendant need to discuss the pros and cons of having the Defendant testify. For instance, if the Defendant has prior felonies he or she may not want to testify and have prior convictions used against him or her. Typically in criminal cases, the jury will not hear about a Defendant’s former felony convictions unless the Defendant takes the stand. There are other good considerations as well: Is the circumstantial (non-witness) evidence presented by the prosecution strong or weak? Will the testimony of the Defendant have any weight in deciding guilt or innocence? Is the Defendant credible and likeable? Defense attorneys want the jury to like their client, to sympathize with him or her, and understand the situation as presented by the defense. Sometimes, although certainly not always, that goal is better achieved by the Defendant’s silence.

If the Defendant has multiple cases – an open domestic violence case, a divorce case and a restraining order case for example – the Defendant and his attorney may not want him to testify where statements made in one case can be used to impeach the Defendant in one of the other cases. A Defendant might not want to make a statement in the Permanent Protection Order Hearing, only to have the opposing party get a copy of the transcript to use against him in the domestic violence case.

Whether or not to testify is a decision that must be decided on an individual case basis. Each Defendant must decide this with his or her attorney based on several factors which may be determined at trial (e.g. a last minute decision based on the progress of the case) or can be decided in advance depending on the circumstances of the Defendant’s case.

By Mark C. Cohrs
Senior Investigator
The Gasper Law Group

The average law abiding citizen will likely have very few occasions to interact with the police. One of the most common occasions will probably occur because you committed a traffic violation, or because you became the victim of a crime or a perceiving eye witness to an incident. In the latter cases, the police will typically interview you about particular details of the event that are professionally referred to as the six essential elements of information; Who, What, When, Where, Why and How. This process is generally referred to as an interview, although some procedures simply involve the process of you writing out a statement about what happened.

In the case of the traffic offense, the seasoned officer will cleverly elicit an admission of wrong doing by asking “Do you know why I stopped you?”, to which you will probably feel compelled to answer something to the effect of “I was speeding” or “I didn’t come to a complete stop at the stop sign.” Human nature seems to cause us to believe that admitting the offense will dissuade the officer from issuing the ticket. Where that may work on some occasions, your admission will more often be documented in the officer’s affidavit in the same quotation marks as written above.

Continue reading " When you have the right to remain silent, but not the ability! " »

By Sean N. Young
Paralegal
The Gasper Law Group

As a criminal defense paralegal, it’s my job to take care of many of the little things that happen in between court appearances. While the attorneys are negotiating with the DA in and out of court, I might be performing some other task that a law degree does not require. I might help a client get in contact with an alcohol education provider, or I might draft a Motion to Appear by Telephone for client that lives out of state, and might be financially unable to travel back to Colorado for a given court hearing. Among all the things I do, probably the most frequent thing is answer any non-legal questions (or at least find the answer) that a client might have.

A criminal case can be a very stressful process for a client and their family. The outcome is not always favorable and if the defendant suspects this, they might just want a sentence sooner than later, just to get it over with. (I can confidently say however, that the outcome of any given case is almost always more favorable with an attorney’s help than without it). Clients often ask me when their case is going to get dismissed, or whether the next court appearance is going to be the last. The best way for me to describe a criminal case is that you have to think of it as a marathon, and not a sprint.

We all understand how stressful the process is, but as a defendant, you must have endurance for the race; you must be the tortoise, not the hare. Everybody knows the story: the slow moving tortoise beats the speedy hare. The process takes time and you must have patience. You never know what piece of evidence, or key witness might step forward and turn the case in a completely different direction. When our attorneys meet with a potential client, they will always tell the client that the most important thing to look for in an attorney (beyond competence in the subject matter) is someone the client can trust. It is the attorney’s job to keep you in the loop as to what is going on in your case, and they will not make serious decisions without advising you on the likely or probable outcome first.

Continue reading " A Paralegal's Tale - Patience, My Friend " »

By Caryn J. Adams
Managing Partner - Criminal Division
The Gasper Law Group

The Supreme Court recently handed down its decision in the Kentucky v. King case in an opinion written by Justice Alito. The vote was 8 to 1. The case will stand for the proposition that law enforcement may rely on exigent circumstances to enter your home even if they don’t have a warrant and even if the actions of law enforcement contributed to or caused the exigency. Generally, the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prevents the police and their agents from entering a person’s home without (1) a warrant, (2) consent, or (3) “exigent circumstances.” Exigent means pressing or demanding, so exigent circumstances are those where the situation does not allow law enforcement to wait for a warrant. Traditionally, legally recognized exigencies fall into three categories: (1) the police are pursuing a fleeing felon, (2) there’s a risk that evidence will be destroyed if the police wait, or (3) there’s an emergency where someone’s life is or could be at risk.

Continue reading " Your Castle Under Siege: When the Police Can Enter Without a Warrant " »