Mankey Law Office can help you with these or other affirmative defenses in your case.
]]>Once the police get involved and charges are filed for domestic assault, what was once a private has now morphed into the State of Minnesota v. Defendant. It is very difficult to get the government out of your private business once it has its prosecutorial hooks into a couple's relationship.
The moral of this story is, don't get the police involved unless it is absolutely necessary. Couples fight and sometimes it is necessary to call the police to diffuse a situation. People should should be aware that once the government is invited into the intimate details of your life, it's a long process to get them out of your life.
One of the collateral consequences of being charged in Minnesota with domestic assault is a Domestic Abuse No Contact Orders (DANCO). A DANCO is requested by the prosecutor and granted by a presiding judge. DANCOs often accompany an Order for Protection (OFP) pursuant to the family law statutes. An OFP requires an alleged victim of domestic abuse petition the Court for an order seeking protection against the alleged assailant.
In an OFP, the Court has the power to address child custody, child support and related matters. The DANCO by contrast is most often requested by the prosecutor based on what the charges are and whether the alleged victim wants a DANCO. A prosecutor may inquire of the alleged victim what they desire vis-à-vis a protective order, but often the prosecutor will substitute his or her judgment for that of the alleged victim in what can be viewed as blatant paternalism.
If a Minnesota DANCO is in place, getting it dropped is a difficult undertaking. In all fairness to judges who issue DANCOs, they are concerned that if they lift a DANCO prematurely and another violent incident occurs the judge who lifted the DANCO will be vilified in the press.
[nap_names id="FIRM-NAME-1"] has represented many defendants who have DANCOs against them. We get questions about what an alleged victim can do to get a DANCO lifted. There are few things to understand:
The Minneapolis-based law firm of [nap_names id="FIRM-NAME-1"] has the years of experience in domestic assault cases and has had tremendous success in minimizing the damage to a defendant against whom a DANCO is ordered. If police must be called in a domestic abuse or assault situation, contact Matthew Mankey at [nap_names id="FIRM-NAME-1"] and our team of experienced professionals can help.
]]>If an officer makes a claim or representation that is materially false, an experienced attorney should request a "Franks Hearing." This special hearing arises from the United States Supreme Court case Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978), where the Court affirmed the right of a defendant to challenge a warrant seizing their person, papers or effects and outlining the alleged criminal activity.
A Franks Hearing can be requested to 1) determine if the representation in the affidavit is, in fact, false; and 2) if so, determine whether probable cause still exists for the warrant if the false statement is removed from the affidavit. If the representation is false and no probable cause exists absent the false representation, the search is invalid and the evidence seized will be suppressed.
Why is this so important? Suppression of the evidence obtained in the invalid search can result in dismissal of criminal charges.
Another issue that arises in these cases is whether there is a nexus (or connection) between the evidence the police are looking for and the place where they want to search for it. A classic example arises in situations where a person is found to be in possession of contraband at a location other than their house and police apply for a search warrant to search a suspect's house.
These are just two examples of issues that can be identified by an experienced criminal defense attorney. Twin Cities criminal defense attorney Matthew Mankey and [nap_names id="FIRM-NAME-1"] have been defending these and other criminal law issues for 30 years. Mankey keeps pace with the fast-evolving criminal laws in drug and firearms. It's important to hire an experienced criminal defense attorney because the penalties for drugs or firearms convictions are getting more and more severe.
If your home or office is searched by law enforcement, don't speak to them. Protect your rights and call an experienced defense attorney immediately.
]]>It is imperative that a defense lawyer understand the rules, exceptions, and exceptions to the exceptions about whether and how the State may use the alleged victim's statements accusing a person of a sex crime. An experienced criminal defense attorney should challenge these statements at every opportunity: in pre-trial evidentiary or dismissal motions, and at trial.
In many cases involving children alleging sexual abuse, the alleged victim has made statements in a forensic interview with a nurse specially trained in forensic interview techniques involving children and abuse.
In cases involving very young children, often times it will be determined that the child is too young to testify. In those cases, it is essential that the defense attorney make motions to exclude the videos from ever reaching the jury - because those videos can be extremely prejudicial to a defendant.
Often the State will attempt to admit the forensic video interview on the basis of its inherent reliability. These and other issues common to these cases raise serious Constitutional issues - in particular the 6th Amendment and the long-standing right of the accused to confront his accuser.
A skilled criminal defense attorney should retain an expert in the field of child forensic psychology that specializes in child sex cases. Such an expert can be instrumental in identifying problems in the forensic interview - and there are often substantive problems with these forensic interviews where children allege abuse.
Matthew Mankey is an experienced criminal defense attorney who has tried over 100 cases. Serving clients throughout Minnesota and the Twin Cities Metro, with an experienced legal team, investigators and experts, [nap_names id="FIRM-NAME-1"] has proven results in defending people accused of sex crimes.
]]>Congratulations to our innocent client!
]]>[nap_names id="FIRM-NAME-1"] was able to convince the Court of Appeals to affirm the trial court's decision to dismiss but held that probable cause was not needed to conduct the dog sniff but only the lesser standard of a reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals held that even this lesser standard had not been satisfied in this case where there were only allegations from an unknown officer that an informant had told him that Weyker had been in "possession of 8-10 pounds of methamphetamine within the past month." The Appellate Court found the tip insufficient to satisfy the reasonable articulable suspicion standard because it lacked information relating to where the tip came from which is commonly referred to in the law as a "basis for knowledge" of the tip. In other words, the tip was just allegations not corroborated by any additional police investigation. The important holding of the case is that going forward police only need a reasonable basis to conduct the search, not probable cause. The case has now been dismissed.
]]>If we are to pay more than token lip service to the concept that a goal of the criminal justice system is more than simply to punish the offender, if we believe that rehabilitation is part of the process, employment, affordable housing, access to mental health and health care are essential to realizing the goal of returning offenders to society in productive roles. For far too long ex-convicts have been denied even a chance at rehabilitation in large part due to the common practice of employers to run routine background checks made possible by the internet and disqualify folks who have criminal records.
As the article points out, often the former offenders are so appreciative of the opportunity they have been afforded that they are frequently outstanding employees. Obviously this trend benefits the offenders but what is often lost on those who wish to perennially punish offenders by stigmatizing them, this really is a win/win. Society benefits by reducing the number of ex-convicts who re-offend leading to less public expenditures in maintaining large prison populations. It costs approximately $30,000 per year to house a federal inmate.
These types of programs are particularly beneficial for those whose crimes were drug related. We believe that drug offenders should be treated outside the criminal justice system. Addiction is a disease and as such the stigma associated with serving time is especially harsh for those whose drug offenses were victimless. Dignity through work will increase the chances that the drug offenders will maintain sobriety and contribute to society. We commend the companies and organizations mentioned in the Star Tribune article and encourage other companies to follow their lead. Hopefully this trend will continue.
]]>The practical effect of this ruling is that intoxicated drivers will no longer be able to argue that merely because a pistol is no longer physically possessed by him or her they are not subject to the statutory prohibition. The question now will be whether a driver can gain immediate access to the firearm. The Supreme Court cited favorably cases from other jurisdictions with similar statutes that suggest that firearms under passenger seats and in glove compartments, that may not be technically within arm's reach, could very well be considered "on or about the person's clothes or person" for the purposes of Minnesota Statute § 624.7142 subd. 1(4) (2016).
]]>