The case stemmed from the March 29th shooting of Keith Basset on the 3200 block of Chamberlayne Avenue.  The shooting left Bassett in critical condition although he has mostly recovered from his injuries.  The shooting appeared to be related to an ongoing dispute between Brown and Bassett that culminated in the shooting.

The problem with the case for the prosecution was that Bassett was a known drug dealer and had threatened Brown on more than one occasion.  Also, the testimony from Bassett and other prosecution witnesses appeared to be extremely far fetched in relation to the known evidence.  It appeared, from the evidence, that Bassett waited for Brown to leave work in the early morning hours of March 29th. 

As Brown was walking home on Chamberlayne Avenue, Bassett surprised him as he came from behind a building with a 9mm semi-automatic firearm drawn.  In an effort to defend himself, Brown was able to shoot Basset first even as Bassett fired several rounds at Brown as he attempted to flee the scene.  Bassett was not able to adequately explain how he just so happened to be on Chamberlayne Avenue at 3:00 a.m. at the exact time that Martin Brown was walking home from work.  He also had a very difficult time explaining how he was able to shoot at Brown several times after having been shot in the face if his gun was not already drawn and primed.

All of these unanswered questions left the jury little doubt that Brown acted in self-defense and they delivered their verdict of acquittal after deliberating less than one hour.

On August 30, 2008, deputies with the Greensville County Sheriff’s Department were responding to a call for a domestic dispute when they encountered Odom.  Odom, who was unarmed at the time, began approaching the officers.  Although there was clearly nothing in Odom’s hand, the officer shot and killed Odem while his family members looked on in disbelief.  There was no indication that the officers used pepper spray or other methods of non-lethal force before firing.  As one of the family members who witnessed the shooting stated, “it was like the officer just panicked.”

The family is decided to take legal action against the department and is seeking $750,000 in damages.

The case stemmed from the theft of a credit card from another Fluvanna teen while at a gathering of students sent home earlier due to a power outage at the high school.  Soon after the party, a teen discovered several unauthorized charges made to his credit card.  After the credit card was reported stolen, the authorities quickly turned their investigation to J. Holman,* whose home address appeared to have been used to make some of the fraudulent charges to the stolen credit card.  Holman quickly implicated Logan and, as a result, Logan was charged.

The problem with the case for the prosecution was that Holman was known to authorities to be a delinquent.  In fact, when called to testify as a witness at trial, Holman was incarcerated in the county’s juvenile detention center on unrelated charges.  Another problem for the prosecution was the fact that a significant portion of Holman’s testimony was contradictory.  He changed his testimony during the course of the trial more than once and he was also unable to recall important details regarding what he allegedly witnessed.

By the end of the trial, the judge expressed grave concerns regarding the testimony of Holman and subsequently dismissed the charges.

*Not real name

The case stemmed from a robbery of a man in the Gilpin Court housing development on November 28, 2008.  Two armed individuals entered an apartment occupied by the victim and demanded money.  A struggle ensued and ultimately the assailants fled. 

Brown was identified as a suspect in the robbery by an individual known to have been involved in this, as well as, other robberies.  The problem with the case for the prosecution was that the story told by the individual was inconsistent with other evidence and it appeared the majority of his statements were self-serving.  The ultimate nail in the coffin for the prosecution’s case was when the victim failed to identify Brown as one of the assailants.

This case again shows the unreliability of testimony from informants.  These individuals are self-serving and criminals by definition and it is often difficult to trust their veracity when another individual’s freedom hangs in the balance.

The case involved a routine traffic stop on I-95 in Emporia, Virginia which led to the seizure of 20 lbs of marijuana from the vehicle.  The Emporia Police Department is known for “aggressive” policing on I-95 and, at times, has been accused of blatant profiling.  The reason the police officer in this case gave for pulling the vehicle was that it was not displaying a front license plate as required by Virginia law.  The problem was that the vehicle was registered in Pennsylvania and was displaying a Pennsylvania tag.  Unknown to the officer was the state of Pennsylvania only requires one license plate.  Because the driver of the vehicle was not violating the law, the traffic stop was unlawful and the evidence obtained as a result of the stop was thrown out.

This case demonstrates the importance of challenging traffic stops particularly when it appears that law enforcement is conducting “fishing” expeditions.

Spencer Peters has always maintained his innocence, but the prosecution, relying mostly on the statements of federal detainees, attempted to link him to the 2003 homicide.  The problem for the prosecution was that many of these witnesses had given prior inconsistent, and often completely contradictory, statements to law enforcement.  The other problem with these witnesses was that they had all received significant sentences in the federal system and therefore had significant motivation to fabricate testimony.  The more these inconsistencies came to light, the more problematic the case became for the prosecution.

In spite of the decision to withdraw the murder charges in this case, the attorney for the Commonwealth would not go so far as to proclaim the innocence of Mr. Peters.  However, the more the evidence came to light, the more likely it appeared to Peters’ attorney that the wrong individuals had been prosecuted.  Fortunately for Mr. Peters, this chapter of his life is over.

Two recent decisions by Eric Holder support this belief.  First, on April 1, 2009, the Justice Department made the shocking announcement that it would be moving to vacate the convictions of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, a Republican.  The announcement stated that the move was made primarily based on prosecutorial misconduct within the Justice Department which helped lead to the convictions.  Secondly, Holder has decided not to prosecute CIA officials whom may have been involved in harsh interrogation tactics against alleged terrorist detainees, a move that has angered many Democrats.

These moves by the Justice Department should be applauded because we could not have expected anything like this from the Roberto Gonzalez Justice Department.  This shows a level of integrity from our new Attorney General that we have not seen in a long time from that post.  It is unfortunate that we have come to accept as normal the politicization of the Justice Department and criminal prosecutions based on politics and political rivalries.  It was not that long ago that Roberto Gonzales was under scrutiny for firing career prosecutors within the Justice Department for not being ‘Republican’ enough.  What is even more amazing is that people actually defended Gonzalez and felt that it was fine if our criminal justice system had a political bent to it.

Well, thankfully, it is a new day at Justice and hopefully the Department can continue forward with its intended mission.  That mission is insuring justice for all Americans.

Horace F. Hunter, Esq.

The case stemmed from a police raid on the Whitcomb Court Housing Development on January 9, 2009.  Approximately 7 or 8 Richmond police officers from a special narcotics unit conducted a ‘cowboy’ style raid on the housing development in an effort to round up suspected drug dealers and other individuals suspected in illegal activity.  After storming the housing development, roughly 15 to 20 youths began running in different directions as the police attempted to coral them.  The problem was that most of the individuals running were not involved in any criminal activity, but merely running because of the chaos of the situation.

An officer testified that he saw Mr. Godwell make a throwing motion in the direction that crack cocaine was later found.  He also testified that Mr. Godwell confessed that the items found were his.  The problem with the testimony was that it was apparent that the individual he was initially chasing was not Mr. Godwell.  He did not make the arrest, another officer apprehended the defendant and the officer arrived later and identified him as the person who made the throwing motion.  The problem was that after a close look at the area where the arrest took place, Mr. Godwell could not have been the person he was chasing.

The other problem with the Commonwealth’s case was that the ‘confession’ did not seem to make sense.  The defendant initially denied that crack cocaine found was his.  However, the officer testified that without any prompting or any questioning, the defendant confessed that the drugs were his and he was there to sell drugs.  None of this made any sense to the jury that was legitimately left wondering why someone would confess to a crime without being questioned by anyone.

This case demonstrates that ‘confessions’ need to be highly scrutinized.  The police simply showing up and saying that a suspect confessed is not and should not be enough without more to convict someone of a serious crime.

*This is not the defendant’s real name

This move by the Justice Department should be applauded because we could not have expected anything like this from the Roberto Gonzalez Justice Department.  This shows a level of integrity from our new Attorney General, Eric H. Holder, that we have not seen in a long time.  It is unfortunate that we have come to accept as normal the politicization of the Justice Department and criminal prosecutions based on politics and political rivalries.  It was not that long ago that Roberto Gonzales was under scrutiny for firing career prosecutors within the Justice Department for not being Republican enough.  What is even more amazing is that people actually defended Gonzalez and felt that it was fine if our criminal justice system had a political bent to it. Well, thankfully, it is a new day at Justice.

The dismissal of the charges against Stevens came after an internal investigation at the Justice Department where it was discovered that the prosecutors in the case had withheld key evidence from the defense.  The evidence could have exonerated the senator had it been brought to light earlier.  It has recently been announced that a criminal investigation is being launched against those prosecutors. The problem now is trying to figure out how many other people were wrongly convicted under the Gonzalez administration and seeing that those injustices are corrected.  For now, let’s just say that it is good knowing the era of corruption is over at Justice.

This case stems from the 2003 murder of Ambrose Carpenter in the Highland Park area of Richmond.  Clifford Noel and Spencer Peters were charged with the crime based exclusively on the statements of individuals who were convicted of serious offenses and are now seeking reductions in their lengthy prison sentences.  These individuals, who all knew each other, spoke to federal and state authorities on numerous occasions about what they knew regarding the homicide.  The problem for the prosecution is that at least three of the main witnesses provided false information to the authorities and at least one of them provided false information on more than one occasion.  Because the prosecution had a duty to disclose the previous false statements, the prosecution conceded that a mistrial was warranted.

This concession by the prosecution has fueled speculation that the Commonwealth may opt to drop the charges against both defendants.  Spencer Peters, represented by Horace Hunter of the law firm of Hunter & Lipton, was granted a mistrial in October and is now scheduled for trial in May.  Because of the recent developments in the Noel case, the attorney for Peters has filed for a postponement as well as for more information regarding the prosecution’s witnesses.  The prosecution has not yet responded to these requests. 

The case arose out of the Chesterfield County Circuit Court where the trial judges consistently ruled that a bag of any type used during the commission of a larceny constituted a burglarious tool as burglarious tools are defined by the statute.  The problem was that everyone in the legal community generally agreed that that was not the purpose of the statute.  The statute makes possession of burglarious tools a felony and it did not seem logical to anyone that someone who stole a $.05 stick of bubble gum and placed it in a purse committed a felony while another person who stole that same stick of bubble gum and placed in their pants pocket was committing a misdemeanor.  There was some speculation among members of the criminal defense bar that the major department stores in Chesterfield and Henrico County were behind the push to prosecute petty shoplifters as felons but that has never been proven.

This issue was finally decided however by the Virginia Court of Appeals when they said definitively that a purse was not a burglarious tool.  They traced the history of the statute as well as other appellate court decisions and held that it was ludicrous to believe that the intent of the statute could have ever been to criminalize the conduct presented in this case.  The Court further went on to describe the absurd results that would follow if they were to carry the Commonwealth’s argument to its natural conclusions. 

The case arose out of the Chesterfield County Circuit Court where the trial judges consistently ruled that a bag of any type used during the commission of a larceny constituted a burglarious tool as burglarious tools are defined by the statute.  The problem was that everyone in the legal community generally agreed that that was not the purpose of the statute.  The statute makes possession of burglarious tools a felony and it did not seem logical to anyone that someone who stole a $.05 stick of bubble gum and placed it in a purse committed a felony while another person who stole that same stick of bubble gum and placed in their pants pocket was committing a misdemeanor.  There was some speculation among members of the criminal defense bar that the major department stores in Chesterfield and Henrico County were behind the push to prosecute petty shoplifters as felons but that has never been proven.

This issue was finally decided however by the Virginia Court of Appeals when they said definitively that a purse was not a burglarious tool.  They traced the history of the statute as well as other appellate court decisions and held that it was ludicrous to believe that the intent of the statute could have ever been to criminalize the conduct presented in this case.  The Court further went on to describe the absurd results that would follow if they were to carry the Commonwealth’s argument to its natural conclusions. 

The case receive a great deal of attention because Deshun Taylor, 14, was killed by a stray bullet while outside in the Fairfield housing project.  The problem with the case for the Commonwealth was that it appeared that Avery, along with his co-defendant Jesse Young, were both firing in self defense.  Unfortunately, ballistic testing showed that the fatal shot was fired by Young.  Because Young and Avery were both together shooting at another group of individuals, Avery was charged with the homicide and accepted a plea to lesser offense to put the matter behind him.  Judge Beverly Snukols accepted the three year plea deal and understood that the facts of the case were highly contested and there were conflicting reports from independent witnesses as to who fired first.

If a plan is to ease overcrowding is carried out, most of the offenders eligible for release would be non-violent offenders and those offenders incarcerated on probation or parole violations.

The case began as a highly contested case wherein the testimony of an alleged accomplice was going to be the Commonwealth’s primary evidence.  However, A. Smith agreed to a plea deal wherein he would receive one year three months incarceration in the Charlotte County Jail and would not be transferred to the Department of Corrections.