Minnesota Criminal Defense Attorney & Lawyer : Minneapolis Criminal Defense Law Firm : Brown Law Offices : St. Paul, Twin Cities MN

The act of obstructing justice takes many forms. Minnesota law defines "obstruction of justice" as the the interference with the work of law enforcement, including peace officers, prosecutors and federal authorities. There are a host of crimes in Minnesota that constitute obstruction of justice:

• Escape;
• Fleeing A Police Officer In A Motor Vehicle;
• Warning A Subject of Police Investigation;
• Witness Tampering; and
• Interference With A Dead Body

An individual who: (1) escapes while in custody pursuant to a lawful arrest, in custody on a charge or conviction of a crime, or while detained on an allegation or adjudication of a delinquent act; (2) transfers to another, who is in lawful custody on a charge or conviction of a crime, or introduces into an institution in which the latter is confined, anything usable in making such escape, with intent that it shall be so used; (3) having another in lawful custody on a charge or conviction of a crime, intentionally permits the other to escape; (4) escapes while in a security hospital; or (5) escapes while on pass status or provisional discharge is guilty of criminal escape.

An individual who, by means of a motor vehicle, flees or attempts to flee a peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty, and the perpetrator knows or should reasonably know the same to be a police officer, is guilty of fleeing a police officer.

An individual, having knowledge that a subpoena has been issued, and with intent to obstruct, impede, or prevent the investigation for which the subpoena was issued, gives notice or attempts to give notice of the issuance of the subpoena or the production of the documents to a person is guilty of the crime of warning of police investigation.

Someone engaged in harming or otherwise threatening a witness, hoping to influence his or her testimony, is guilty of witness tampering.

Someone who interferes with the body or scene of death with intent to mislead the coroner or conceal evidence is guilty of the crime of interfering with a dead body.

Have you been charged with obstruction of justice? The Minnesota criminal attorneys with the Brown Law Offices, P.A. can help. We've handled thousands of cases and will fight to protect your rights. Contact us for a free consultation with one of our experienced lawyers. You can call (612) 789-2100 or submit your inquiry through our online consultation form.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Minnesota, a misdemeanor is punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a maximum fine of $1,000. The most common misdemeanor charges include moving violations such as failing to stop at a stop sign, underage driving under the influence, and driving after license revocation. Some of the more common non-motoring misdemeanors include fifth-degree assault, DWI, a first violation of an order for protection and theft charges involving merchandise valued at less than $500.

Once a citation is issued a court date will be assigned. Some citations may simply be taken care of by paying a fine prior to the court date. The first court appearance in a misdemeanor case is referred to as an "arraignment." The individual who has been charged will be advised of their rights and may enter a guilty or a not guilty plea. If a guilty plea is entered, the Judge will usually impose the sentence at that time. Penalties often include a fine, jail time, and other conditions during a period of probation.

If a not guilty plea is entered the case is set for a pre-trial hearing. At the pre-trial, the prosecuting attorney and the defense lawyer attempt to reach a resolution. If no resolution is reached at the pre-trial conference, the case is scheduled for a jury trial. In misdemeanor cases, both the State and the defendant may present evidence to a jury of six.

There are a number of situations in which conduct involving a misdemeanor charge will carry a felony penalty as a result of the offender's prior record. For instance assault in the fifth degree is a felony if the offender has two or more prior convictions for assaultive behavior. Likewise, theft crimes of more than $200 but less than $500 are felonies if the defendant has at least one prior conviction.

The criminal defense lawyers with the Brown Law Offices, P.A. are here to help you. We've handled countless misdemeanor cases in Minnesota. Contact us for a free consultation with one of our experienced Minnesota misdemeanor defense attorneys: 763.323.6555 or submit your inquiry through our online consultation form.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an effort to make the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure more useful, the Minnesota Supreme Court has taken a complete re-write of the rules under advisement and will hold a hearing relative to these revisions on June 30, 2009 at 2:00 PM. A complete copy of the proposed rules may be found at the Minnesota Supreme Court web site.

According to Barbara Jones, associate editor with the Minnesota Lawyer newspaper, what started as a re-working of Rule 26 evolved into a complete overhaul of the present Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure over a 19 month time frame. If the new rules are accepted by the Supreme Court, the hope of the Rules Committee is to have these in use and publication by the fall of 2010.

The amended Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure would contain a more user-friendly approach to the criminal process, including a number of checklists to accompany various hearings, such as omnibus and arraignment appearances. The present framework has been in place since 1975, with many piecemeal amendments made along the way.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has affirmed a district court order certifying a 17 year old defendant as an adult in a second degree murder case. The relevant opinion is entitled In re the Welfare of MED. Judge Klaphake drafted the opinion.

In a certification proceeding, the Court of Appeals will review the district court’s findings for a clear error utilizing an abuse of discretion standard. Because the minor was 17 years old at the time of the offense and the offense was one that would result in a presumptive prison commitment under the sentencing guidelines, it is presumed that the proceeding would be certified for adult prosecution. Consequently, the child has the burden of rebutting this presumption by demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that retaining the proceeding in the juvenile court serves the public safety. If the child does not rebut the presumption, the court must certify the matter in adult court.

Judge Klaphake wrote:

Appellant failed to present evidence to support his contention that public safety would be served if he remained in the juvenile system. The offense charged is serious and appellant has a steady history of juvenile offenses, including both misdemeanors and a felony adjudication. Appellant participated in limited programming at Prairie Lakes Youth Program (PLYP) after his arrest; according to PLYP records, appellant 'has not done well,' 'has had several problems with the program and has had consequences for his thinking and actions,' and 'has had an above average amount of consequences.'

The Court found that the minor defendant provided no clear and convincing information to rebut this information or to demonstrate that public safety would be served by retention in the juvenile system. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court’s order.

Under Minnesota law, to try a minor as an adult, a certification hearing must take place. The prosecutor will note his or her intention to move the case into adult  court through a motion at the first juvenile court appearance. Once requested, a certification study often takes place. During this study, experts will examine a child's criminal history, meet with the accused and offer recommendations about the appropriate forum to try the case. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Do I have to answer the questions asked by the police?

You have the constitutional right to remain silent. It is not a criminal act to refuse to answer questions. It is a good idea to talk to a lawyer before agreeing to answer questions. You do not have to talk to anyone, even if you have been arrested or are in jail. Only a judge can order you to answer questions.

Can I talk to a lawyer?

You have the right to talk to a lawyer before you answer questions, whether or not the police inform you of that right. The job of a criminal lawyer is to protect your rights. Once you say that you want to talk to an attorney, officers should stop asking you questions. Even if you do not have a lawyer, you may still tell the officer you want to speak with one before answering questions. If you have a lawyer, keep his or her business card with you. Show it to the officer, and ask to call your lawyer. Remember to get the name, agency and telephone number of any investigator who visits you, and give that information to your lawyer.

Can the police search my home or office?

The police, or other law enforcement agents, cannot search your home unless you give them permission, or unless they have a search warrant. A search warrant is a court order that allows the police to conduct a specified search. Interfering with the search probably will not stop it and you might get arrested. But you should say clearly that you have not given your consent and that the search is against your wishes. Your roommate or guest can legally consent to a search of your house if the police believe that person has the authority to give consent. Police and law enforcement need a warrant to search an office, but your employer can consent to a search of your workspace without your permission.

What if the police have a search warrant?

If you are present when agents come for the search, you can ask to see the warrant. The warrant must specify in detail the places to be searched and the people or things to be taken away. Call a lawyer as soon as possible. In addition, ask if you are allowed to watch the search. If you are allowed to, you should. Take notes, including names, badge numbers, what agency each officer is from, where they searched and what they took. If others are present, have them act as witnesses to watch carefully what is happening.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an unpublished decision issued on March 10, 2009, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed aggravated robbery conviction despite a claim by the defendant that he was denied the right to a speedy trial. Judge Worke wrote the decision in State v. Dahir.

Under the state and federal constitution, in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.” Minnesota courts apply a four-part test to determine whether a defendant’s speedy-trial right has been violated: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) whether and when the defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial; and (4) the prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay.

In Minnesota, following a speedy-trial demand, the trial shall commence within 60 days of the demand unless good cause is shown. Delay beyond 60 days raises a presumption that a defendant’s speedy-trial right has been violated, and requires further inquiry into whether a violation has occurred.  Judge Worke opined that "Appellant made a speedy-trial demand on August 7, 2007. Appellant’s trial commenced nearly four months later on December 3, 2007; therefore, further inquiry is necessary to determine whether a violation has occurred."

The reason for delay is closely related to the length of delay, and different weights are assigned to different reasons. A deliberate attempt to delay trial to harm the defense is weighed most heavily against the state. But, the Court found "that is not the case here because the delay was caused by court-calendar congestion and the fact that a new judge took over appellant’s case." While delays caused by overcrowded courts are weighed against the state because the state is ultimately responsible for such circumstances, this type of delay weighs less heavily against the state.

Assertion of the right to a speedy trial need not be formal or technical, and it is determined by the circumstances. A court must assess “the frequency and intensity" of a defendant’s assertion of a speedy trial demand. However, Dahir demanded his right to a speedy trial and, at the same time, waived that right to the extent that his trial would occur slightly beyond the 60-day period. His attorney then agreed to a November 14 or a December 3 trial date, and the trial commenced on December 3. Judge Worke found this factor is neutral because, despite Dahir's clear demand, his attorney agreed to the continued trial date.

Whether a defendant has been prejudiced by a delay encompasses three concerns: (1) preventing oppressive pretrial incarceration, (2) minimizing the anxiety of the accused, and (3) limiting impairment of the defense. Dahir argued that he experienced prejudice because he was subject to pretrial incarceration and could not make bail, was the subject of anxiety and his defense was "likely harmed" because of the delay. All three arguments failed.

The Court concluded that Dahir's "constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated." Certain factors, such as the length of the delay and his assertion of the right to a speedy trial, favor him. But because the trial date was continued for reasons beyond the control of the state and because [he] was not prejudiced by the delay, he is not entitled to relief."

The criminal attorneys with the Brown Law Offices, P.A. are leaders in representing criminal defendants. Cynthia Brown, a founding partner in the firm, is a former Minnesota prosecutor and criminal investigator who has been interviewed by ABC News. To contact our firm, please call 763-323-6555 or complete a free case consultation form.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Minnesota, manslaughter is defined as the killing of a person in a manner less culpable than murder. The relevant manslaughter statutes differentiate the seriousness of the offense based upon the state of mind of the defendant at the time of the killing. Manslaughter may be voluntary or involuntary under Minnesota law.

In a voluntary manslaughter situation, the perpetrator must have an intent to cause death or serious injury. Liability for the death, however, may be reduced in light of the specific circumstances surrounding the actions and the state of mind of the individual who is charged. For example, a "heat of passion" killing (such as responding with deadly force upon witnessing an abusive act upon a child) may involve a voluntary manslaughter charge.

With involuntary manslaughter (sometimes involving negligent or criminal vehicular homicide) no intent to kill or cause serious injury is necessary. Instead, the death of another may result from reckless disregard for the rights and safety of others - such as causing the death of a driver in a motor vehicle accident.

Under the Minnesota manslaughter statutes there are three types of manslaughter charges:

• First Degree Manslaughter
• Second Degree Manslaughter
• Criminal Vehicular Homicide and Injury

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Under Minnesota's DWI statutes,  the vehicle owned by certain drunk drivers may be subject to forfeiture and sale. Typically a third DWI violation within a ten-year period results in the loss of a car, but, with one or more enhancing factors, a person’s second or even first DWI might qualify as well.

Motor vehicles operated by a drunk driver are subject to forfeiture in Minnesota if:

• The vehicle was used in the commission of a designated offense and the driver was convicted of that offense or failed to appear at trial; or
• The driver had an alcohol concentration of .20 or more; or
• The vehicle was used in conduct resulting in license revocation and the driver either fails to seek administrative or judicial review of the revocation in a timely manner or the revocation is sustained upon review.

A second or third car or truck owned by the offender, but not driven while intoxicated, are not subject to forfeiture.

As protection for a vehicle owner who borrowed their vehicle to the offender, Minnesota law provides that a motor vehicle is subject to forfeiture only if the true owner knew, or should have known, of the unlawful or intended use of the vehicle to drive intoxicated.

After the forfeiture process is compete, law enforcement may keep the vehicle for official use. Security interests or lease terms, if any, are protected, and the lien holder may choose to sell the vehicle at its own auction or agree to a sale by the arresting agency. A proportionate share of the proceeds, after the deduction of certain expenses, goes to the lending institution.

If you have been charged with drunk driving in Minnesota and your vehicle may be subject to forfeiture, contact attorney Jason Brown for information about your legal rights and recovery of your property: 763-323-6555 or submit our free consultation form.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Felonies are  punishable by over one year to life imprisonment and a maximum fine indicated in the relevant Minnesota statute. Felony offenses are the most serious of all crimes and are pursued very aggressively by the State. Common felonies include the possesssion of sale of large quantities of narcotics, rape, assault, criminal sexual conduct, arson, murder and theft. In felony cases, the county attorney 's office is the prosecuting authority. In some cases, the Minnesota Attorney General's office will get handle things.

Because of the serious conduct involved with felony offenses, a number of court appearances will take place.

Upon arrest, defendants make their bail appearance. The bail amount is set and release conditions are imposed. If a defendant cannot post bail on their own, they can obtain a bond through a bondsman or remain incarcerated pending trial.

The next step involves the arraignment hearing. In an arraignment, the court will ensure that a defendant understands their rights and what they are charged with.

The next appearance is called an "omnibus" hearing and involves a challenge to probable cause and the evidence obtained by the state in violation of your constitutional rights.

Once the omnibus issues are addressed, the case is set for a pre-trial conference. At that hearing, negotiation takes place between the prosecutor and defense attorney. If a plea agreement is reached, it is read into the record. If a plea cannot be reached, a trial date will be set.

If convicted, the matter is set for sentencing. The state will conduct a pre-sentence investigation to examine the background of the defendant and make a recommendation concerning the sentence that should be imposed.

A conviction for felony often impacts a defendant's ability to obtain employment, secure student loans, serve in the military, vote and possess a firearm. It is far more difficult to expunge a felony conviction than a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor convication.

The felony defense lawyers with the Brown Law Offices, P.A. have years of experience in handling felony charges in Minnesota, including drug offenses, criminal sexual conduct, fraud, manslaughter and others. To contact our attorneys, call 763-323-6555 or submit a free consultation form.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link