I am charged with a crime and want to know, How much trouble am I in?

If you have been charged with a crime you need to know how much trouble you are in.  Everyone knows that different crimes call for different punishments.  But what are those punishments?  How do I know that my possible punishment is?  How much time could I do?  This is a video created by a Kansas Criminal Lawyer to show you how the grids work.  Remember, you need to speak with a criminal defense lawyer about your specific case.

What is a diversion when it comes to a criminal case.

A diversion can be a useful tool if applied correctly.  Whether it be utilized in a DUI case, a criminal charge, or a speeding ticket diversion can surely help you keep your record clean and avoid some stiff penalties in a criminal case.

Here is a common way this question gets brought up.

Q: I am charged with theft in when I took a few items from a Walmart.  My brother told me I should try to get a diversion.  What is a diversion?

A.  A diversion agreement often referred to as “a diversion” is a contract between you and the prosecutor. When someone has committed a crime sometimes the prosecutor will offer the offender a way to divert the charge; by using a diversion agreement. Basically, if you do everything that the agreement requires you to do and don’t violate any of the conditions of the agreement the prosecutor will not move forward with the case. Additionally, you will usually have to stipulate to the facts you are accused of committing. If you break the agreement the prosecutor will proceed with the case, along with the facts that you stipulated to, making their case much easier to prove. Diversions can work great if you don’t make any more mistakes.  I always advise clients to really look at themselves and their past.  It they are the type of person who gets in trouble often then a diversion may just be setting yourself up for failure.  They have their place but now right for everyone. Just in case you happened to stumble across this blog because of a Kansas Theft case Then here is a video for you.

What the evidence shows and doesn't show in the Trevon Martin Case

We have all been following it.  It's the new "Trial of the Century!"  They have evidence, they don't have evidence.  Zimmerman was on top now he wasn't on top.  It was Trevon yelling help, now it is Zimmerman yelling help, or vice-versa.  There are so many media spins and attempts to sell newspapers and advertising time by manipulating the "facts" that everything is getting convoluted.

My take on it is that they need to let the police and prosecution do their job.  The prosecutors are put into the position to determine  if justice is done by prosecuting  Mr. Zimmerman, if it isn't in the interest of justice then they should not prosecute him.  A prosecutor should not fall prey to the media machine and the whims of the uneducated and unknowing public.  The prosecutor gets the evidence and makes a determination as to whether justice is done by prosecuting a defendant.  You don't take the input of the general public who do not know the totality of the evidence.  The general public knows nothing of the evidence aside from what the sensationalist media tells them.  The media's job is basically to inflame the public so that they keep interest and keep buying newspapers or watching their news program.  That is it.

I don't know if Zimmerman is guilty or innocent.  But it doesn't seem that anyone really knows.  So why are they going forward with the case?

Here is an article that the Kansas City Star put out about the lack of evidence.

What the evidence in Trayvon Martin case doesn't show

By SCOTT HIAASEN, AUDRA D.S. BURCH AND FRANCES ROBLES

McClatchy Newspapers

The stack of evidence released last week in the second-degree murder case against George Zimmerman is notable, legal experts say, for what's not in it: firm evidence that Zimmerman acted with malice when he shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

Special prosecutor Angela Corey charged Zimmerman last month, alleging that Zimmerman, a neighborhood crime-watch volunteer, acted with ill will when he shot Martin, who was black, after a Feb. 26 scuffle behind some townhouses in a gated community in Sanford, Fla., where Martin was staying with his father.  But analysts say the evidence released so far contains little information to support the prosecutor's contention that Zimmerman acted with a "depraved mind" when he shot Martin - a standard the prosecution must meet if the murder charge is to stand.  "I still don't see any evidence yet of the elements of second-degree murder," said Miami defense attorney John Priovolos, a former prosecutor. The special prosecutor "has to prove ill will, hatred or spite. I don't see any evidence of his state of mind," he said.

The new evidence also includes photos of injuries to Zimmerman that could bolster his self-defense claims, and statements from witnesses that appear to contradict some key conclusions made by investigators in an affidavit supporting Zimmerman's arrest.  The new information "tends to support what Zimmerman is saying, that he was being assaulted," said former Miami-Dade prosecutor David Waksman.  "This case was never a second-degree murder case," said longtime Miami defense lawyer Jeffrey Weiner. "If anything, it was an overreaction in a self-defense situation."  Zimmerman was monitoring his neighborhood on a rainy evening when he first noticed Martin walking behind a row of homes on his way to his father's apartment.   Zimmerman called the police to report a "suspicious guy" - the kind of complaint Zimmerman made routinely in his role as neighborhood watchman.

A dispatcher advised Zimmerman not to follow Martin. Prosecutors believe Zimmerman did so anyway. At some point, the two struggled, and Zimmerman shot the unarmed teenager from close range.  Several witnesses in the community said they heard sounds of a struggle and cries for help. But no witnesses could provide evidence showing whether it was Zimmerman or Martin who started the altercation.  Prosecutors have described Zimmerman as a frustrated and overzealous watchman who "falsely assumed" that Martin was a criminal prowling his neighborhood.  "These a-holes, they always get away," Zimmerman complained to the police dispatcher.

An unidentified girl, described by Martin's family as his girlfriend, told investigators she was on the phone with Martin in the moments before the shooting, when Martin told her he was being followed by a man while on his way home. Her statement suggested that Martin was first attacked by Zimmerman.  "He said the guy was getting real close to him. Next thing I hear, 'Why are you following me for?' And I hear this man: 'What are you doing around here?'" the girl told prosecutors.  The girl said she could then hear somebody "bump" Martin before hearing Martin say: "Get off, get off." Then the phone went dead.

A witness in the neighborhood told police she saw one man running after another before the fight ensued, but the witness "couldn't tell who was in front or who was behind," the new records show. Prosecutors have suggested it was Zimmerman chasing Martin.  Zimmerman, however, has said it was Martin who first attacked him - and that he shot Martin in self-defense after Martin smacked his head repeatedly on the pavement. During a bail hearing last month, Dale Gilbreath, an investigator for the prosecution, said he had no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's description of the fight.  Prosecutors on Thursday released photographs of bloody scrapes on Zimmerman's head, and police reports mentioning medical records that showed he had a fractured nose following the altercation."If there were no injuries, Zimmerman would have a very different case," Weiner said.

The evidence of injuries could be pivotal if Zimmerman seeks to have the charges dismissed under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, under which a person may not be prosecuted for using deadly force if the person "reasonably believes" he or she is in life-threatening danger.  A judge must review a Stand Your Ground defense before trial, and the case must be dismissed if the evidence shows it is more likely than not that the person was acting in self-defense - a lower standard of evidence than the one prosecutors must meet to get a conviction. Even if Zimmerman's conduct sparked the confrontation, he could still be protected under Stand Your Ground if he did not strike the first blow, experts say.  "Whether he started it or Trayvon started it, we don't know," Weiner said. "There's a real chance the case will be tossed out."  Even if the case is not dismissed, at trial Zimmerman can invoke Stand Your Ground along with a traditional self-defense claim.
Other evidence released Thursday appeared to cast doubt on assertions in the arrest affidavit prepared by investigators and prosecutors.

The arrest report notes that Martin's mother identified her son as the voice heard crying for help in the background of 911 calls. But Martin's father reviewed the recordings with police and said the voice was not his son's, the new records show. An FBI analysis of the recordings could not identify who was crying for help.  Weiner said the special prosecutor "clearly overcharged" by pursuing a murder charge against Zimmerman instead of a lesser charge of manslaughter. The lead detective in the case originally thought that Zimmerman should be charged with manslaughter, the records show.  "That's going to be, in some ways, the defense's best witness," Priovolos said.

New evidence in the Baby Lisa kidnapping?

The parents of "Baby Lisa" appeared on the Today show this morning with some possible new evidence in the case of their missing daughter.  Apparently, the fathers debit card was stolen and used about one month after the kidnapping on a website that provides documents on how to change a baby's name legally.  From the information in the video the police believe that this is a very far fetched clue and probably a coincidence.  It does seem rather unlikely that someone would wait so long to use a stolen debit card number.  Hopefully the police will investigate the new possible evidence and give it it's due.

With the recent breakdowns in security in regards to credit card number hacking I would think it is far more likely that the father was just another victim of credit card number theft and online fraud. It is just a shame that no person has been identified as being involved in this kidnapping and the case seems to be falling by the wayside.

Here is the Today Show video.  Sorry about the difficult formatting of the video.

We had to take the video down and were not able to find a new source sorry.

What is Bond? How can I bail someone out of jail?

I am playing around with the blog formats so I will be posting this question and answer in video format.  I will also give a brief text answer as well.  Keep writing in questions and I will keep up with the answers as best I can.  If you have a crime specific question please visit www.kansas-criminal-defense.com , for more answers.

Q:  My neighbor was arrested for stealing and now he is out of jail waiting on his trial.  He said he is out on bail or bond.  What does that mean and how does it work?

A: When someone is arrested for a crime there will be a duration of time between their arrest and the time that they go to trail.  It is not always necessary for an accused person to stay in jail waiting on trial, especially since that can sometimes take months.  The judge will release accused persons if he/she is confident that they will return to face the charges.  Often a judge will require that a person put up money or something of value to assure that they will return.  This is called a bond.  The judge will determine an amount that adequately assures that the person will return to court on their next court date then the person will put up that amount and be released from custody.  If they fail to return to court then the bond/collateral can be forfeited.

Many times a person can not afford the amount the judge is requiring them to put up as collateral so they can not be released.  This is where a bail bondsman comes in.  A Bondsman will contract with the accused person's family and will charge a fee based on the risk involved.  Once a fee is negotiated and paid then the bondsman will go into the court and put up the accused persons bond, thus allowing them to get out of jail.  If they do not return then the bondsman will be out his bond.

 

Boilermaker's Pension plan under fire by the Feds.

Recent read in the Kansas City Star claims that the Feds are investigating the union's pension fund and with a possible criminal indictment to come down about possible mismanagement of the funds in trust.  Looks like this investigation goes back several years alleging that the funds were jeopardized by unfair dealing with family friends and "executive schemes."  (Whatever that means.)  Apparently the funds have lost over a billion dollars of value in the economic turmoil of recent years.

Here is the article in the KC Star.  Pretty interesting stuff.

Union's Pension Plan Targeted for Criminal Probe.

By: Judy Thomas

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Federal authorities have launched a criminal investigation into the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers' pension and benefit plans, McClatchy Newspapers has learned.  The investigation began after federal agencies received anonymous complaints about mismanagement of the plans, according to court filings. The complaints included allegations that family members of some trustees received bonuses from companies that managed investments for the three funds, which total $8.5 billion. A grand jury investigation followed.  The agencies include two Department of Labor offices, one of which conducts criminal labor racketeering investigations into employee benefit plans.  "I can understand why the Department of Labor might think there's a cause for concern," said Gus Fields, a former attorney with the Internal Revenue Service and a leading pension fund expert. "There could be an issue here."

The court filings do not provide much detail on the issues and people the grand jury is investigating.  But a recently settled lawsuit by a former official with the Boilermakers funds made detailed claims about unorthodox investment schemes and questionable ties between the funds and a trustee's daughter.  Indeed, The Kansas City Star, a McClatchy newspaper, has found that the daughter of a former trustee and union executive works for a company that has been paid millions to manage investments for the three Boilermakers funds.  An attorney whose firm represents the employee benefit plans said they are under strict supervision by the Department of Labor.  Trustees "administer the fund in accordance with the trust documents and federal laws," said Michael Stapp, of the law firm Blake and Uhlig. Stapp said he was not aware of any grand jury investigation.  A spokesman for the U.S. attorney for Kansas said he could not confirm the possible existence of a federal investigation into the union's funds. But a March 27 legal motion obtained by The Star asks a judge to enforce grand jury subpoenas issued in the case.

The motion says the Kansas City Regional Office of the Employee Benefits Security Administration launched the investigation of the union's employee benefit plans after receiving several anonymous complaints.  The complaints alleged "waste and mismanagement" of the funds by trustees, said the 23-page motion, which also included exhibits and copies of subpoenas.  The document said it also was alleged that some of the investment managers for the Boilermakers employee benefit plans "were hired because of familial relationships of the trustees and the investments managers, as well as gifts provided to the trustees from the investment companies."  According to the filing, the Employee Benefits Security Administration opened a joint investigation with the U.S. Department of Labor's inspector general, who has authority to conduct criminal investigations into employee benefit plans.  Spokesmen for the two federal offices said they could neither confirm nor deny any investigation.  The three employee benefit plans are known together as the Boilermakers National Funds. The plans: The Boilermakers National Health and Welfare Fund; the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust; and the Boilermakers National Annuity Trust.

The funds are administered by trustees, some appointed by the Boilermakers and some by employers who do business with the union.  The investigation apparently goes back several years.  One subpoena was issued in 2010 to the records custodian of the Boilermakers funds seeking notes and minutes of meetings, the court filing said. Two other subpoenas were issued to funds officials even earlier - one in 2008 and another in 2009.  One of those officials subpoenaed later filed a lawsuit claiming that the funds were jeopardized by executive schemes and cozy family relationships.  Curtis G. Barnhill, former executive administrator of the Boilermakers National Funds, filed the lawsuit in 2010 in U.S. District Court, alleging that he was fired because he was cooperating with the federal investigation.  Barnhill, who was executive administrator from July 1, 2005, through Nov. 15, 2008, alleged in the lawsuit that his termination violated his rights under the whistleblower law. He sued the funds, their new executive administrator and 11 current or former trustees.

According to the lawsuit, the pension fund lost more than $1 billion in investments because of worsening financial markets in the summer and fall of 2008. Boilermakers International President Newton B. Jones told Barnhill and others that Jones' re-election could be at risk because possible cuts in pension benefits may be needed, the lawsuit alleged.  Jones is not a trustee of the funds, but the union's trustees serve at his pleasure.
The lawsuit said Jones began taking actions "that were outside of the normal and established investment procedures and policies of the Pension Fund."  In October 2008, the lawsuit alleged, Barnhill told pension fund trustees that Jones' plan "appeared to be financially and legally unsound," violated policies and involved a broker "of questionable background."  In another allegation, the lawsuit claims that George Rogers, then a union vice president, appeared to steer between $500 million and $1 billion worth of contracts to his daughter's company. At the time, Rogers was a trustee on all three employee benefit plans.  At least one trustee resigned in protest over what the trustee said was Rogers' improper influence in giving contracts to his daughter's company, the suit said.

According to the lawsuit, Barnhill expressed his concerns about nepotism and Jones' investment practices to other trustees.  In November 2008, the lawsuit alleged, Barnhill received a subpoena ordering him to appear before a federal grand jury in Kansas City, Kan.  Barnhill told trustees that he planned to fully cooperate with authorities. But two days before he was to appear, the lawsuit said, Barnhill was fired. He was told he was being terminated because of an alleged "romantic overture" to a female independent contractor working in the office and an overly friendly comment to another, the lawsuit said.  The lawsuit said he was fired in order "to damage Barnhill's credibility, to deter him from testifying fully and freely before the grand jury, to separate him from his records which had been subpoenaed, and to punish him for his stated intent to cooperate with a federal grand jury investigation."  The lawsuit said Barnhill cooperated with the federal investigation throughout much of 2009.  The defendants denied Barnhill's allegations in court filings.
They acknowledged that some trustees were aware that Barnhill had been subpoenaed as part of a federal investigation, but denied that they did anything to try to prevent his testimony.  They also denied any unorthodox investment schemes, that Rogers steered contracts to his daughter's company or that a trustee resigned in protest.

The actions by the funds officers were "at all times justified," according to their motion asking a judge to dismiss the lawsuit.  Court records show that the lawsuit was settled and dismissed on March 15. Barnhill declined to comment on his lawsuit.  Stapp, the union's general counsel, said, "The Boilermaker organization views Mr. Barnhill's assertions as the product of a self-serving imagination." In an interview, Rogers said he did nothing wrong.  "Yes, my daughter works for an asset management company that invests funds for the BNF," Rogers said. "Every time their name came up- not by my doings, but by our consultant - I disclosed to the board, to whatever committee was involved, that my daughter worked for that company and I recused myself from all the voting and discussion. I was gone, out of the room.  "It's all in the minutes."

Rogers said he was a trustee of the funds from 1991 to 1999 and again from 2003 until the end of 2008.
But Fields, the pension attorney, said that Rogers' recusing himself may not matter in the big picture.  "This pension system apparently knew about this relationship and they did engage her," he said.  Although the lawsuit did not name Rogers' daughter or her company, The Star found that the Boilermaker funds hired HGK Asset Management Inc., where Rogers' daughter works.  The daughter, B.K. Power, is vice president of sales and marketing at HGK, according to the company's website.  Annual reports filed with the U.S. Department of Labor and the IRS show that HGK was paid $8 million by the Boilermakers National Funds from 2004 through 2010 to manage investments.  Power formerly was married to another Boilermakers vice president.  She has worked at HGK since August 2001 and is "responsible for developing and managing client relationships," the company's website says.  Previously, Power was an internal auditor for the Boilermakers, her website bio says.  Neither Power nor HGK responded to requests for comment.

Stapp said the funds are governed in strict accordance with conflict of interest policies "and are constantly vetted to scrupulously avoid any conflicts of interest."  But Nathan Mehrens, a former Labor Department attorney who now is general counsel for Americans for Limited Government, said the hiring of a firm where Rogers' daughter was a key employee raises an important question:  "Did this plan engage in this service because it was best for their members, or did personal considerations play into that decision-making process?"
(Thomas reports for The Kansas City Star.)

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/05/13/3608176/unions-pension-plan-targeted-for.html#storylink=cpy

Richard Cuchli, a Kansas City lawyer that was convicted of murdering his law partner in 2002, is a free man.  In what was an obvious and blatant disregard for the criminal justice process, the prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence and convicted Mr. Cuchli at an unfair trial.  The Court of Appeals has upheld the decision to exclude all evidence that the prosecutor has forcing the DA's office to dismiss the charges.

Irregardless of the defendant's guilt or innocence this just goes to show you that you have to play by the rules, and when you don't sometimes you get caught.

Here is the article in the Kansas City Star.

All charges dismissed in Kansas City lawyer’s murder case 

By: Tony Rizzo

A murder case that roiled the Kansas City legal community for more than a decade has been dropped.

Faced with an appeals court ruling that threw out all evidence in the case, Jackson County prosecutors said Monday that they had dismissed murder charges against a Kansas City lawyer accused in the 2000 killing of his law partner.  The case against Richard Buchli, accused in the beating death of Richard Armitage, had been plagued throughout by problems over evidence being turned over to defense attorneys in a timely manner.  After those problems came to light, Buchli’s 2002 conviction on charges of first-degree murder and armed criminal action was thrown out in 2006.  And in December, as attorneys prepared for a second trial, the Missouri Court of Appeals ruled that the state’s continued failure to provide all the evidence in its possession had prevented Buchli from receiving a fair trial.

Jackson County prosecutors called that ruling a “de-facto dismissal of the case.”

They asked the Missouri Supreme Court to review that ruling, but last week the high court declined to hear the case, allowing the appeals court ruling to stand.With no evidence left to use, prosecutors filed the dismissal Friday.  “We are happy the state has decided to dismiss the charges,” said Richard Johnson, one of the attorneys representing Buchli. “I have no doubt about Richard’s innocence, and I’m glad the case has ended in his favor.”

Because murder has no statute of limitations and the case could someday be refiled if new information turns up, Johnson said that Buchli did not want to make a comment about the dismissal.  Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker’s office also declined to comment. Members of the Armitage family could not be reached.  Armitage was 49 when he was beaten to death in May 2000 in the 13th floor office he and Buchli shared in the Kansas City Power & Light Building downtown.  After a Jackson County jury convicted Buchli in 2002, he was sentenced to life in prison.

Much of the trial testimony centered on spatters of Armitage’s blood found on Buchli’s shoes and clothing. The prosecution contended that showed he was the killer; the defense countered that the blood was transferred when Buchli attempted to revive his injured partner.  Another key piece of evidence was a piece of surveillance video that prosecutors used to establish that Buchli had time to kill Armitage and clean up afterward before he was seen leaving for lunch.  Only later was it discovered that prosecutors had an entire daylong surveillance tape that had not been disclosed to the defense before trial. As a result, a Jackson County judge threw out Buchli’s conviction in 2006 after he had served about five years in prison.

The full tape showed that Buchli would have had little time to commit the killing and clean up, potentially refuting the longer “window of opportunity” argument that prosecutors made at trial.  The judge’s ruling was upheld on appeal and in 2008, after all Jackson County judges recused themselves from presiding over the retrial, the case was assigned to Nodaway County Circuit Judge Roger Prokes.  Two years later, after Buchli’s attorneys raised additional concerns about evidence they had not received while preparing for trial, Prokes ordered the exclusion of all evidence.  “The rules have been ignored, this court has been ignored and judicial resources have been squandered,” Prokes said. “The judiciary cannot wait while the state dawdles.”
In his order, Prokes noted a long list of similar “discovery” lapses in the case.

“If this case did not have the history that it does, this court may well impose different sanctions for the state’s current violations,” he wrote.  But Prokes found that after 10 years of litigation, “the state still has inexcusably failed to produce a complete discovery set.”  “A decade is enough time. This court is left with but one conclusion: The only effective sanction is to exclude all of the state’s evidence from trial,” Prokes ordered.  Jackson County prosecutors appealed the order, but in December the Missouri Court of Appeals voted 8-2 to affirm Prokes’ decision.

“There is unquestionably a societal interest in prosecuting cases of murder, but this does not give the state free reign to prosecute this defendant for an indefinite period of time, no matter how many decades it takes the state to comply with its legal obligations,” the appeals court ruled.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/05/07/3599125/all-charges-dismissed-in-kc-lawyers.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/05/07/3599125/all-charges-dismissed-in-kc-lawyers.html#storylink=cpy