Archive for the ‘Utah Court’ Category

Are Utah Prosecutors Required to Disclose the Identity of a Confidential Informant?

Utah Attorney, Brooke Winters, on the topic of  Constitutional Rights, Criminal Defense Misc, Evidence, Question, Utah Court, Utah Law
0comment

In a nutshell…maybe. A confidential informant or C.I. is someone who assists law enforcement by providing useful information used in the arrest and conviction of another person. The informant can act in a number of ways either by acting as a concerned citizen without the motivation of personal gain while other C.I.’s provide information in exchange for money or for perhaps leniency in cases where they are the defendant.

In Utah, the court can order prosecution to release the identity of the C.I. if it would be relevant or helpful or essential to ensuring the defendant receive a fair trial. The court must weigh relevant factors in making a determination such as potential hazards to safety of parties involved, public interest in protecting the flow of informant information and the defendant’s right to prepare his defense. Generally, the identity of an informant who was a witness to the crime with which the accused is charged or who was an actual participant in the commission of the alleged crime is subject to an order of disclosure.  State v. Forsbee, 611 P.2d 1222 (Utah 1980).

If police or prosecutors do not want to reveal the identity of the C.I. they will have to go to great lengths to show the court that revealing his identity will jeopardize his/her safety or make the C.I. unusable in the future. In the end it is at the court’s discretion and the judge will have to balance the utility of keeping the C.I.’s identify a secret against the constitution rights of the accused.

Plea Bargaining and the Utah Judicial Process

Utah Attorney, Brooke Winters, on the topic of  Criminal Defense Misc, Legal Process, Question, Utah Court
0comment

Plea bargaining first made its way into the criminal justice system during the mid-nineteenth century and has since become a powerful tool in adjudicating cases. There appears to be much debate over why plea bargaining has developed but one thing is clear and that is there is no singular answer. The most common factors cited in the rise of plea bargaining include: crowded court dockets, the oppressiveness of pretrial detention, the low quality of public defenders, the financial incentives of private attorneys, lazy prosecutors and uninformed judges. Several of these examples are not very complimentary to the players in the criminal justice system suggesting that we are sacrificing justice in the name of laziness and personal greed. In speaking with those in the Utah legal community, both judges and attorneys alike, have suggested plea bargaining is a necessary tool to keep the wheels of justice moving and without it, justice would come to a screeching halt. The overwhelming support in favor of plea bargaining is due in part to budget constraints and overcrowded dockets however, plea bargaining continues to develop in areas where court congestion is not a problem suggesting that plea bargaining is not simply a knee jerk response to a system overwhelmed but instead a shift in previously defined roles and how they affect justice.

In a cost benefit analysis; there are some very definite benefits to plea bargaining as opposed to taking every case to trial. Many supporters suggest plea bargaining has more to offer the players in the criminal justice process than a trial based system. It is suggested that plea bargaining allows the prosecutor to be more efficient, thereby being able to handle a greater case load than if more cases went to trial. The same would be true as well for judges, as they would be able to effectively handle a greater case load, and move their cases along with little or no delay. This is very attractive for judges who are faced with increasing pressure, due to case volume, to keep their docket moving. Additionally, plea bargaining is perceived as offering the accused a choice. There is a strong incentive in choosing plea bargaining over trial for both the prosecutor and the accused because there is more control over the outcome.

However, as attractive as plea bargaining looks from the standpoint of efficiency, cost effectiveness and predictability, there is also a downside. Plea bargaining gives enormous control over the outcome of the case to a single player in the process, the prosecutor. By giving such control to the prosecutor, it effectively removes the judge and reduces their role to that of an overseer of events. This is a far cry from the more active traditional role referenced previously. Similar to the different branches of government, the criminal justice system is based on a division of authority where no singular person has greater authority than another. Each person, the prosecutor, defense attorney and judge, has a role in the trial process which helps to ensure the victim, society and the individual rights of the accused are protected in the search for truth. By circumventing this process in favor of one which puts more power in the hands of a single person, the truth finding process is compromised in favor of efficiency.

From a defense perspective, plea bargaining is a lot like playing the odds in Las Vegas. The defendant must guess at what the evidence is and how strong the case is against him and hope that he does not guess wrong. In this situation, you run the risk of extracting guilty pleas from an innocent defendant who takes the safer bet but society pays as well in the case of a guilty defendant who due to plea bargaining gets a lighter sentence.

Critics of plea bargaining argue compromising the outcome of a case through the plea bargaining process is morally wrong. Indeed, the critics suggest efficiency is not enough to justify a system which although resolving some issues creates others such as wrongful convictions, broad prosecutorial power and sacrificing trials in favor of pleas.  Ultimately plea bargaining plays an important role in the Utah criminal justice system and will not be going away anytime soon.

Incompetent to Stand Trial in Utah?

Utah Attorney, Brooke Winters, on the topic of  Criminal Defense Misc, Legal Process, Utah Court, Utah Crime News, Utah Law
0comment

In Utah, a defendant must be able to understand the nature of the charges against them, their rights and be able to participate in their own defense and if they are unable to do so because of mental illness or other mental deficiencies a defendant may be found incompetent to stand trial. Between 2% and 8% of all felony defendants in the United States are referred for competency evaluations. Here in Utah, if a defendant is found incompetent to stand trial they are committed to the executive director of the Department of Human Services to see if they can be restored to competency through treatment and/or medication. If however, competency isn’t restored and there is a substantial probability that the defendant will not become competent in the foreseeable future the court must release the defendant from the custody of the director unless the court is informed of civil commitment proceedings.
Such is the case for a Utah man who in 2007 was charged with rape, sodomy and aggravated sexual abuse of a child. Lonnie Johnson was declared incompetent to stand trial after numerous competency evaluations and has been held at the Utah State Hospital since 2008. In April 2011 Mr. Johnson was released by a 4th District Court Judge who had no legal basis for continuing to hold him based on a doctor’s report that it was unlikely that he would ever regain competency. Prosecutor’s are now working to have Johnson civilly committed. If however prosecutors are unable to show that Johnson’s mental illness makes him a danger to himself or others it is possible he will be set free.

What If I Violate My Utah Criminal Probation?

Utah Criminal Defense Blog, on the topic of  Legal Process, Utah Court
0comment

Utah probation is a privilege extended to a defendant who has been convicted of a crime and is almost always conditional. If you violate the terms and conditions of probation, then a judge can impose the original sentence, which in most cases includes jail or prison time. If your probation officer or the Court believe that you have violated probation, then an Order to Show Cause hearing, usually referred to as an OSC, is scheduled. At that hearing it is the prosecutor’s responsibility to provide evidence that the defendant is in violation of their probation by a preponderance of the evidence. Generally however, a defendant will need to present evidence of compliance. For example, a defendant may have completed community service, but proof of that community service did not reach the court, then a defendant may provide proof of community service. You have the right to hire a utah criminal defense attorney for an order to show cause.

Early Case Resolution Frequently Asked Questions

Clayton Simms, Criminal Defense Attorney, on the topic of  Constitutional Rights, Legal Process, Utah Court
0comment

1. What is Early Case Resolution (ECR)?

Early Case Resolution (ECR) allows defendants and defense attorneys quicker access to courts, prosecutors and the information necessary to deal more efficiently with criminal cases. Two ECR courts will operate Monday through Thursday both morning and afternoon. One ECR court will also be open Friday mornings. Representatives from Adult Probation and Parole and Criminal Justice Services will be present to provide background information. The District Attorney’s Office will staff the courts with veteran attorneys who will have authority to negotiate both plea offers and sentencing recommendations.

2. What type of cases will be heard in Early Case Resolution (ECR)?

All cases will go through the ECR courts. For more serious matters such as homicides and special victim cases the hearing will be treated as an initial appearance. Those cases without complicated legal or factual issues (including restitution) may remain in ECR.

3. Are defendants required to participate in ECR?

No. There is no requirement that anyone to participate in the ECR court. Either party can “opt out” of ECR at any time prior to disposition and for any reason. Many cases, even though they may start out as ECR eligible, will not resolve in ECR court.

4. What happens with NON-ECR cases and those that have “opted out?”

For NON-ECR cases, the ECR court will act as the initial appearance court where the defendant is advised as to the charges, a determination is made about appointment of counsel, and the issue of pre-trial release is addressed. Matters will be transferred to the assigned judge for a scheduling conference or set directly for a preliminary hearing. However, until April 28th, 2011, the scheduling conferences will be on the role call calendars. Thereafter, the scheduling conferences will be on the assigned judge’s law and motion calendars.

5. How will discovery be provided in ECR?

For those cases where the Salt Lake Legal Defender Association (LDA) is appointed, discovery will be sent immediately upon case filing. For private counsel, an initial discovery packet will be available after filing upon request and before the first hearing in ECR. If not requested before that hearing, the discovery packet will be with the file, and available for counsel, at the first hearing in ECR. In either circumstance there will be no charge for the initial discovery packet.
6. Are continuances allowed in the ECR court?
Yes. One of the principles of the ECR court will be a flexible continuance policy. Continuances will be allowed in order to obtain additional information, review discovery, consider offers, etc. However, continuances will be granted for shorter periods of time, mostly for days or a week at a time. With few exceptions, ECR cases must be resolved with 30 days.

7. Can defendants retain private counsel and remain in ECR?

Yes. Care will be taken to make sure that only persons who qualify will be appointed counsel. Defendants who may qualify for appointment but desire to retain private counsel will be encouraged to do so. In fact, the reason to gather the information about indigency at the same time as release information is to avoid the temptation some may have to declare sufficient resources for purposes of release, but later declare insufficient resources to obtain private counsel. Furthermore, those defendants that appear without counsel the court will further inquire into their ability to retain counsel. In appropriate circumstances, the court will recommend that counsel be retained. Continuances will be allowed for persons to obtain counsel.

8. Does ECR change the process of pretrial review of persons held in jail?

Yes. Under the new process, Salt Lake County Pretrial Services will first gather information regarding a detainee’s eligibility for pretrial release and for the consideration of appointment of counsel. Pretrial will continue to release detainees as they do currently. All persons released will received a date to appear in court. Pretrial will transmit the financial information to the court. The court will determine whether or not the defendant qualifies for appointment of counsel if the case is filed.

9. How will cases be resolved in ECR?

The caption of the Information will indicate whether the case has been approved for consideration in the ECR court. The discovery packet for ECR eligible cases will include a tentative settlement offer from the District Attorney’s Office. Defense counsel will be free to negotiate ECR cases as they would any other matter. Prosecutors will have authority to negotiate and modify offers, including sentencing recommendations.

10. How can sentencing recommendations be negotiated in ECR?

Pleas which include negotiated sentences will be offered under Utah R. Crim. P. 11(I) and therefore may be withdrawn if the court does not accept the proposed settlement.

11. If an ECR eligible case cannot be settled in ECR will the offer remain open?

No. Once a negotiation is concluded and the offer rejected, the ECR offer will be withdrawn. The exception will be those cases where negotiations must continue because the matter requires more time than is allowable in the ECR court. In those situations counsel may negotiate to have the offer remain open after the case leaves ECR.

The above article first appeared in the UACDL’s Defender magazine and was written by Kent Hart, who is the Executive Director of UACDL.

Veterans’ Court Finds a Home in Utah

Utah Criminal Defense Blog, on the topic of  Legal Process, Utah Court
0comment

A magistrate judge in Utah holds a monthly veterans’ court in Salt Lake City aimed at helping armed forces veterans find a place between drug and alcohol abuse and jail. This federal-level veterans’ court is one of the first of its kind and is modeled after traditional mental health and substance abuse courts found throughout the country. What makes this court unique is the defendants—men and women who have served our country and now find themselves in bad situations due to post-traumatic stress disorder, combat-related injuries, depression and anxiety to name a few.

Photo: Expert Infantry

You might wonder if there is a need for this special court. The answer is “yes.” We owe our liberty and independence to these people, many of whom have risked their lives for us. It’s devastating to think of military veterans who come home from war with problems they didn’t have before they left just being ignored, or worse, thrown into prison without a chance for receiving the appropriate treatment they desperately need.

Utah criminal defense attorneys do more than represent defendants in high-profile criminal cases. Good attorneys are looking to help the average citizen, especially those who deserve a break, such as military veterans who may have made some wrong choices but want to be clean and lead happy lives. If you or a loved one are a military veteran and require legal advice on any criminal matter, know that assistance is available for you. Consult a Utah criminal defense attorney who will make your best interests his or her priority.

Is Extreme Emotional Distress a Defense in Utah?

Utah Criminal Defense Blog, on the topic of  Legal Process, Question, Utah Court
0comment

The Utah Supreme Court recently reversed a court of appeals’ decision concerning the defense of extreme emotional distress. The case involves the allegations that Brenda White tried to kill her ex-husband in 2006 when she drove her SUV through the window of an office building located in Salt Lake City. From the beginning, White’s defense was that she only allegedly committed the crime because of the extreme emotional distress that she was under during the time leading up to the event. However, the district court judge denied White’s petition to give the jury any instructions regarding the extreme emotional distress defense, and the court of appeals upheld the district court judge’s order.

Photo: Richard Winchell

The Utah Supreme Court sent the matter back to the district court with instructions to reevaluate the evidence supporting White’s request for an extreme emotional distress defense. They stated “that the court of appeals’ decision impose[d] a standard more exacting than the statute mandates.” That essentially means the court of appeals was wrong when it determined that extreme emotional distress defense was not reasonable because it included events over a long period of time leading up to White’s alleged action in her SUV. If a person is found guilty of attempted murder with the special mitigation of extreme emotional distress, by statute the charge must be reduced to attempted manslaughter. That would mean a reduction from a 1st degree felony to a 3rd degree felony, which would affect a person’s time behind bars.

It’s good to know that there are judges looking out for the rights of Utah citizens. If you need defending in court, look for a Utah attorney who will fight for your rights regardless of your situation.

Utah Woman Determined Factually Innocent

Utah Criminal Defense Blog, on the topic of  Hiring a Lawyer, Utah Court, Utah Legal Definition
0comment

Last week, a Utah woman convicted of murder in 1995 was found “factually innocent” of that crime by a 2nd District Court Judge. Debra Brown is scheduled to be released from the Utah State Prison on Monday, following several days of an evidentiary hearing during which time the factual innocent statute was put to the first test of its kind.

Photo: bloomsberries

Under the Post-Conviction Remedies Act amended by the state legislature in 2008, a person convicted of a felony offense has the right to ask the court to reconsider their case in a hearing, as long as their case meets certain new standards. Petitioners requesting a hearing to establish their factual innocence have the burden to prove that they did not commit the crime they were convicted of. A finding of factual innocence by the court means that the convicted person played no part whatsoever in the felony crime of which they were found guilty. That judgment goes beyond a finding of legal innocence, which means there is a reasonable doubt that a person committed a crime, not that they didn’t commit the crime for certain.

If you believe that you or someone you love are in a position similar to Brown’s, do not wait any longer to talk to a skilled criminal defense attorney. Don’t sit in prison hoping that someone will decide to revisit your case. Take control of your own destiny by making sure that your case has all possible scenarios explored.  If you leave your life in the hands of the state, you will stay right where you are for the duration of your sentence. Consult a Utah defense attorney today and have hope for a better tomorrow.

Appealing a Utah Trial Court Criminal Conviction

Clayton Simms, Criminal Defense Attorney, on the topic of  Legal Process, Utah Court
0comment

If you don’t like the decision that was made on your criminal court trial, and your attorney thinks the judge made a legal mistake, you have the right of appealing your case with the Utah Court of Appeals.  Utah’s seven appellate judges conduct Court of Appeals sessions in the Scott Matheson Courthouse (photo shown) in Salt Lake City, but they also travel the State and hear all appeals from the juvenile and district courts.

Photo: Edgar Zuniga Jr.

The Court of Appeals only hears cases involving criminal felonies of the 2nd and 3rd degree and all misdemeanors, as well as post-conviction appeals involving prison conditions for all levels of crime as long as you are not appealing the actual conviction.

Keep in mind that these judges only seek to determine whether a legal mistake was made and whether that mistake would have made a substantial difference to the trial’s outcome.  The appellate court does not retry the case nor does it take new evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses.  You and your attorney must file the Notice of Appeal within thirty days from the date of the final judgment.  Also, do not think of filing an appeal that is clearly frivolous or for the purposes of harassing someone, as it can backfire with the court ordering you to pay a hefty fine and legal fees of the party you filed the appeal against.

Court decisions for 1st degree and capital felonies can be appealed to the Supreme Court.  Decisions from the justice court are appealed to the district court.  Decisions from traffic court are appealed to the justice court and decisions from a small claims court are appealed to the district court.

Stages of A Utah Criminal Case

Utah Criminal Defense Blog, on the topic of  Crimes, Legal Process, Utah Court
0comment

The stages of a Utah criminal case follow a general pattern, and it is never too early to contact and hire an attorney for guidance through the criminal justice system. It is best to hire a lawyer during the investigation phase because an attorney may help prevent charges from being filed, or possibly work out a resolution to the case very early on.

During the investigation phase a 911 call may have been made and a police officer or detective responds to the scene to investigate whether a crime has occurred and if so, who committed the crime. It is advised to speak with an experienced and talented Utah criminal lawyer before talking to a law enforcement officer.

 Misdemeanor Cases

In a misdemeanor case an arraignment occurs where the defendant either pleads guilty or not guilty. If a defendant pleads not guilty, then a pre-trial conference is set. A pre-trial conference allows a prosecutor and a Utah criminal defense lawyer an opportunity to talk about resolving the case. If the case cannot be resolved, then a motion such as a motion to suppress may be filed and/or the matter may be set for trial.

 Felony Cases

In a felony case, a judge will generally not accept a plea of guilty but rather will simply enter a plea of not guilty and allow time to consult with an attorney. This is the first opportunity for defendants who cannot afford to hire their own attorney to request that a public defender be appointed to represent them. In addition to this process, other issues may be addressed; such as a request that the amount of bail required for release be reduced or that the defendant be released either on his or her own recognizance or to pretrial services.

In felony cases only, a defendant has the right to a preliminary hearing. The purpose of the preliminary hearing is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence for the prosecutor to proceed with the case to trial.

After a preliminary hearing or a motion, then the case may go to trial. At trial the prosecutor will present evidence through witnesses, and the defendant may or may not testify.

The preceding information is a general overview of the criminal justice system but for specifics about criminal cases, an attorney must be contacted.