State District Judge Scott McAfee dismissed two of the eight Georgia criminal charges against the once and future (maybe) president on jurisdictional grounds.
McAfee found that state prosecutors did not have the authority to bring those charges, which related to the alleged filing of false documents in federal court.
McAfee allowed the remainder of the case to move forward, including eight charges against Trump. He and fourteen co-defendants have pleaded not guilty to racketeering and other charges stemming from what prosecutors allege was a scheme to overturn Trump’s narrow defeat in Georgia in the 2020 election.
The case has been on hold since June while a Georgia appeals court considers whether the lead prosecutor, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, must be disqualified over alleged misconduct tied to a romantic relationship she had with a former top deputy.
Dual Offenses
When a Marietta criminal defense lawyer secures a favorable outcome in state-level criminal court, the defendant may not be out of the woods yet. In fact, in many cases, the defendant may only be on the outer edge of the woods.
Crossover jurisdiction is a surprisingly common issue in criminal law. Occasionally, the matter is clear cut. Usually, it’s not.
Federal-state jurisdiction is clear cut. State prosecutors can’t prosecute people for federal crimes and vice versa. However, defendants can be charged with state and federal crimes.
Federal prosecutors normally defer to state prosecutors, except in large multi-state crimes like drug and human trafficking operations. If federal authorities don’t like the outcome in state trials, they eagerly flex their muscles and exercise the controversial separate sovereignties exception to the double jeopardy clause.
Civil/criminal crossover is common as well. These forums have different purposes. A Marietta criminal defense lawyer defends people against criminal charges. A Marietta personal injury lawyer secures compensation for crime victims. Some examples include:
- DUI Crashes: Due to penalty enhancements, defendants face stiff punishments in these cases. Civil liability is significant as well. The average economic losses (mostly medical bills) in a catastrophic (life-threatening) DUI crash exceed $150,000. Furthermore, a third party, like a restaurant or bar, could be financially responsible for these and other damages.
- Premises Liability: These torts include falls and swimming pool drownings. These torts also include assaults and drug overdoses. Property owners who don’t adequately protect people from assaults and other harmful incidents could be liable for damages in civil court. Property owners who turn a blind eye to drug use on the premises face the same risk.
- Hit-and-Run: A Marietta personal injury lawyer typically pulls double duty in these matters. Law enforcement investigators resolve fewer than 10 percent of hit-and-run cases. So, a personal injury lawyer must track down the tortfeasor (negligent driver), to obtain justice and compensation for victims and survivors.
The purpose is different in civil and criminal court. So is the burden of proof. A Marietta personal injury lawyer must only establish facts by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not).
Hit-and-run is a good example. In criminal court, a competent witness must place the defendant behind the wheel at or near the time of the wreck. But in civil court, pinpointing the owner usually suffices. It’s more likely than not that the owner was driving the vehicle at the time.
Pretrial Proceedings in Criminal Cases
Especially in criminal cases, pretrial motions are an important component of a defensive strategy. Defense lawyers always win these motions. Sometimes, the motion convinces a judge to throw the case out of court, or it whittles down the evidence to the point that the prosecutor gives up. If nothing else, pretrial motions delay the process, and delay is usually a defense lawyer’s best friend.
On a quick note, if the defendant remains behind bars, the timetable is accelerated and there’s usually no time for pretrial motions. That’s why immediate jail release is so important in criminal cases.
Motion to Suppress
These motions usually focus on illegally obtained evidence, generally Fourth and/or Fifth Amendment violations.
The Fourth Amendment limits detentions, and more importantly, searches and seizures. Usually, officers need warrants to overcome the Fourth Amendment’s prohibitions. Some exceptions apply, such as:
- Consent: If owners agree to property searches, the Fourth Amendment prohibition doesn’t apply. Usually, consent is an overt, voluntary act. Opening the front door for a police officer isn’t an overt act that demonstrates consent. Furthermore, officers cannot threaten owners, subtly or otherwise.
- Plain View: If officers conduct a lawful search, such as lawfully detaining a motorist, and they see contraband with their own two eyes, they may seize it, warrant or not. The plain view exception usually hinges on the legality, or lack thereof, of the law enforcement contact.
- Pat Down: Weapons pat-down safety searches are technically legal, but many law enforcement agencies don’t allow them, because they’re associated with racial profiling. If an officer pats down a suspect for weapons and fins (or rather feels) drugs, the plain view exception applies.
Prosecutors often try to work backwards and argue that since the officer found evidence, the search was legal. But, for legal purposes, outcome is irrelevant.
Fifth Amendment right-to-remain-silent violations are harder to establish now. Fruit from a poisonous tree motions to suppress (e.g. officers illegally interrogate Mary who tells them where she buried the body) are likewise harder to establish. But this constitutional right still applies in some cases, most notably during DUI checkpoint law enforcement contacts.
Motion to Exclude
These motions usually challenge the credibility of admissible evidence. Witness credibility is a good example.
Usually, judges rightly give jurors the chance to determine for themselves if a witness is credible or not. However, at some point, the witness’ credibility is so shaky that s/he mustn’t be allowed to potentially sway jurors.
If the state’s key witness in Georgia vs. Mary is a paid informer, jurors can decide if that witness is telling the truth. If the state’s key witness is legally incompetent, perhaps because he’d just been released from a mental hospital, the judge may exclude that testimony.
A Marietta criminal defense lawyer typically gets another bite at the apple. If the judge doesn’t exclude the testimony, a lawyer still cross-examines the witness to erode his/her credibility in front of the jury.
Procedural issues strongly affect case outcomes. For a free consultation with an experienced Marietta criminal defense lawyer, contact The Phillips Law Firm, LLC. Virtual, jail, and after-hours visits are available.
