Mankey Law Office

The Defense Of Coercion And Duress

2023-11-13T10:10:07Z

Most everyone, lawyers and laypersons, are familiar with the affirmative defense of self-defense. The defendant is required to submit enough evidence regarding the defense to justify a judge instructing the jury on the elements of self-defense. When a person believes force is necessary to protect oneself or another from physical harm, the defendant may claim the defense of self-defense. Deadly force can only be used to protect against a comparable amount of force. A lesser-known affirmative defense is coercion or duress. The US attorney’s Office is concentrating on guns and gang violence, we are seeing opportunities to use this defense in cases where gang members threaten other members of the gang to commit an offense. The law allows a defendant to claim he only committed the offense to avoid a greater harm. For example, a person robs a bank because he or a loved one is being threatened with great bodily harm or death unless he commits a crime. A defendant must establish that (1) he was under threat of imminent threat of great bodily harm; (2) for which he did not negligently place himself in which it is probable that he would have to commit a crime; (3) that the person had no reasonable alternative to violating the law and (4) there is direct evidence the commission of the crime was necessary to avoid the threatened harm. These elements are demanding. To avail oneself of this defense, the federal case law makes clear that a defendant must inform law enforcement of the duress at the earliest opportunity.

Mankey Law Office can help you with these or other affirmative defenses in your case.

Felon In Possession

2023-11-13T10:10:18Z

In response to what she described in a recent press release as an extraordinary spike in gun violence and violent crime across the Twin Cities, United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota, Erica MacDonald, is forming a multi-agency Violent Crime Task Force. The task force will consist of agents from the FBI, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Secret Service, U.S. Marshals Service, Minnesota BCA and local police forces and Sheriff’s Offices. When the feds decide to concentrate on certain types of criminal activity, in this case gun violence, Mankey Law Office sees a significant increase in gun related prosecutions. In light of the recent violence surrounding the murder of George Floyd, Mankey Law Office has fielded many inquiries regarding eligibility to purchase guns particularly from people who have been denied because of a prior felony conviction. Unfortunately, even if a conviction is expunged under State Law, Federal Law forever bars individuals with felony convictions from ever possessing a firearm of any kind, pistol, rifle or shotgun. The conflict between the state and ederal law can lead to confusion. For example, a person convicted of domestic assault or even disorderly conduct amended from a domestic violence charge is often told at sentencing that they can not possess a gun during their probationary period. What most defendants are not told however, is that under federal law, a domestic violence conviction serves as a lifetime bar to gun possession. Both the state and the federal government can prosecute a felon for possession of a firearm. The state statute carries a statutory maximum of 15 years. A federal conviction, depending on an individual’s criminal history, number of firearms possessed and many other factors, can lead to a significantly longer sentence including life imprisonment. If you have questions about your eligibility to purchase or possess a firearm or if you have been charged in either State of Federal Court with a crime involving a firearm, Mankey Law Office can help.

“In All Criminal Prosecutions, The Accused Shall Have The Right…To Be Confronted With The Witness Against Him.” Sixth Amendment, United States Constitution

2023-11-13T10:16:09Z

Justice Scalia reinforced an accused’s right to confront his accuser in the landmark case of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 2004. Prior to the Crawford decision, the Courts would allow a witness to testify to hearsay if it had a sufficient indicia of reliability. Scalia based his analysis on the actual wording of the sixth amendment which guaranteed an accused’s right of confrontation and therefor out- of-court statements made to police officers that are testimonial are inadmissible unless the declarant is unavailable and the accused had an prior opportunity to cross examine the witness whether or not the court deemed the statement to be “reliable.” A statement is testimonial if it relates to past events. Statements are non-testimonial when they are made to deal with an ongoing emergency. Davis v. Washington, U.S. 813 2006. Since the Crawford decision, courts have struggled with whether certain statements are testimonial and therefore inadmissible or non-testimonial and therefore admissible. Despite clear guidance on this issue from the United States Supreme Court in a series of decisions after Crawford, Minnesota courts have consistently muddied the waters particularly in child sex abuse cases. The decisions seem to engage in a result oriented analysis involving disingenuous mental gymnastics to arrive at a decision that feels right. Specifically, child forensic interviews, commonly referred to as “Cornerhouse Interviews” have been held to be non-testimonial and admissible despite the accused’s inability to cross examine the witness. In cases where a child testifies at trial and the video statement is played to the jury, while problematic for its redundancy, it still does no harm to the concept of due process because a defendant is given the chance to cross examine. In those cases where a child is either too young or traumatized to testify, the inclusion of the video interview should be prohibited as violative of a defendant’s right of confrontation. A defendant cannot cross examine a video. Admittedly, alleged child sex abusers enjoy little public sympathy. But all are presumed innocent until proven guilty by a system that vigorously defends the accused, no matter how heinous the allegations. Confrontation is designed to elicit the truth which is at the bedrock of our individual liberties and hence our democracy because it is only through the diligent representation of the accused, that the rights of average citizens are protected. Understandably, judges want to protect children as they are our most vulnerable citizens but they cannot do so at the expense of our constitutional rights. The simple test of what is testimonial and what isn’t should be the cornerstone of every analysis. This would lead to predictability for criminal defendants and prosecutors alike. https://www.mnbar.org/resources/publications/bench-bar/articles/2020/10/01/child-sex-abuse-and-the-sixth-amendment

Minnesota Criminal Defense Attorney Matthew Mankey Has Three Decades Of Experience In Representing People Facing Charges Of Domestic Assault.

2023-11-13T10:11:03Z

A common question [nap_names id="FIRM-NAME-1"] hears is "What if my significant other wants to drop the domestic assault charges against me?"

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 alleged victim must have input on whether the DANCO is lifted.
It is easier to get a DANCO lifted in cases where the alleged victim is a man and the perpetrator is a wife or girlfriend.
An alleged victim can contact the prosecutor's office and speak to the victim/witness person in the office and request the DANCO be dropped at the defendant's next court appearance.
The alleged victim can also contact the defendant's attorney and inform him or her that they want the DANCO dropped and are willing to come to court and tell the presiding judge that they want their loved one back home.
It is necessary for the alleged victim to convince the court that he or she is not afraid of the defendant, that the conduct at issue was aberrant and suggest that the couple wishes to engage in counseling of some sort.
There is no guarantee that such a request will be granted by the court and will depend in large part on how egregious the allegations are, whether it has happened before and how convincing and insistent an alleged victim is.

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.

Unlawful Searches: Invalid Search Warrants Can Result In Criminal Case Dismissals

2023-11-13T10:11:34Z

Many prosecutions of criminal cases involving drug offenses begin with the execution of a search warrant. It is essential that the warrant affidavit -- the document a law enforcement officer presents to a judge to justify the issuance of a warrant -- be scrutinized for accuracy. Ensuring the affidavit's accuracy can be the make or break moment in a case involving alleged drug offenses.

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.

Alleged Sex Crimes Involving Children: Children’s Statements In Videotaped Forensic Interviews

2023-11-13T10:11:44Z

Sex crimes involving alleged child victims present unique challenges on many issues, but particularly the admissibility of the alleged victim's statements alleging abuse.

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.

Dog Sniff At Apartment Door Only Requires Reasonable Suspicion

2023-11-13T10:11:53Z

Recently [nap_names id="FIRM-NAME-1"] was retained to defend a client charged with two counts of felony threats of violence. It was alleged that the client threatened neighbors with a gun over a dispute involving the neighbors pit bulls. The client had a clean criminal history and vehemently denied engaging in the behavior. After careful review of the body camera footage worn by the responding officers it became clear that the allegations made by the complainants simply could not have happened as was reported. The Ramsey County Attorney assigned to the case listened carefully at the pretrial conference and agreed to re-review the video taking into account the problems that Mr. Mankey saw with the State's case. After she did so she decided that the case should be dismissed. We are happy for the outcome for our client but we also believe that the prosecutor should be commended. Our criminal justice system is designed to be adversarial and it is rare indeed when a prosecutor seeks a just result rather than blindly seeking a conviction for every case charged. This is how the system is supposed to work. We are pleased with this result.

Congratulations to our innocent client!

Probable Cause No Longer The Standard For Canine Searches

2023-11-13T10:12:04Z

Recently [nap_names id="FIRM-NAME-1"] received a favorable ruling from the Minnesota Court of Appeals in the unpublished case of State of Minnesota v. Cabbott James Weyker, No. A18-0786. The Office of the State Public Defender requested that [nap_names id="FIRM-NAME-1"] write the Appellate Brief and argue the case to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The facts are as follows: After receiving a tip from different officer from another jurisdiction that an informant had told him that Weyker was a methamphetamine dealer without providing any basis for the information, Officer Peter Meyer brought a drug detection dog to the door of Mr. Weyker's apartment. The dog alerted at the threshold of Mr. Weyker's apartment door, and police used this information to obtain a search warrant to search the apartment where ammunition and methamphetamine were found. The State charged Mr. Weyker with Controlled Substance Crime in the 5^th Degree and possession of ammunition by an ineligible person. The District Court dismissed the case reasoning that a warrant based on probable cause was needed before the dog sniff occurred.

[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.

Availability In Labor Opening Up Opportunities For Those With Criminal Past

2023-11-13T10:12:13Z

The Minneapolis Star Tribune recently published an article in which it reports that the shortage of available labor is opening up employment opportunities for people who have served time in prison. This is good news not only for the former convicts but also for society at large. The article reports that close to 60% of Minnesota inmates are back in prison within two years of their release. Giving former offenders the ability to work with dignity is perhaps the best way to insure that inmates do not re-offend and return to prison. We at [nap_names id="FIRM-NAME-1"] have been asserting this for years. It should surprise no one that people return to prison when employers refuse to hire former inmates. In a country that incarcerates more people per capita than any other industrialized country it is imperative that former offenders be given at least an opportunity to lead a productive lives.

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.

Minnesota Supreme Court Expands The Prohibition Of Carrying A Pistol While Intoxicated

2023-11-13T10:12:22Z

The Minnesota Supreme Court this week greatly expanded the prohibition of carrying a pistol while intoxicated. Mr. Prigge was stopped in a motor vehicle for suspicion of driving while under the influence. A search of the vehicle revealed that there was a handgun in the center console. Prigge was subsequently charged with DWI and carrying a pistol while under the influence pursuant to Minnesota Statute § 624.7142 subd. 1(4) (2016) Mr. Prigge successfully argued to the District Court that the charge of carrying a firearm "about his clothes or person" while under the influence of alcohol should be suppressed because a gun in the center console was not "about his clothes or person." The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the charge reasoning that there needed to be a "physical nexus" between a person's clothes or person and the pistol. The Minnesota Supreme Court however disagreed. They determined that this analysis ignored the word "about" in the statute. About is defined as "in the vicinity" or "in the immediate neighborhood." Using these dictionary definitions of the word "about" the Supreme Court concluded that in the context of the statute that prohibits carrying a pistol while intoxicated boils down to having the pistol either on one's person or "in one's personal vicinity defined as within arm's reach.

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).