Georgia Criminal Defense Lawyers Blog

Criminal Defense News – Atlanta school administrator cleared

Published on: September 20, 2013 | By Conaway & Strickler, P.C.

When certain criminal defense cases hit news, all eyes are drawn to the defendant. It’s often the case that news reports can cast individuals as guilty even before they’ve gone on trial. Despite this perception, everyone who is accused of a crime is entitled to presumed innocence when a trial begins, no matter how much attention the case receives.

The Atlanta area has become consumed by allegations that a number of school district officials artificially boosted test scores in order to make it look like students were learning more. In total, 35 district staff members — including teachers and administrators — have been indicted on criminal charges stemming from the supposed scandal.

Not long ago, the first trial against one of the Atlanta school administrators came to a close. Authorities accused the woman of trying to influence one of the people who was set to testify regarding the larger cheating scandal. As a result, she faced corruption-related charges.

Drug Crimes and Throwaway Cell Phones

Published on: September 11, 2013 | By Conaway & Strickler, P.C.

Cell phones, potential drug crimes charges and law enforcement – these three things have been all over the news in the past few months. This past week, a New York Times article revealed that the government has been paying AT&T, through a partnership known as the Hemisphere Project, for a mass amount of phone records dating back to 1987. This project is similar to the NSA’s mass call-tracking program. The Hemisphere project, which until now has been secret, involves large amounts of data mined by the government for calls made, not just by AT&T customers, but if the call went through an AT&T switch, encompassing billions of calls. This poses serious Fourth Amendment issues. The government has been allegedly searching all of this data in order to come up with ways to combat criminal activity. If you use a throwaway phone, but also carry another phone that is with a provider – the government can analzye the usage to figure out who is using the throwaway phones and where.

It will be intesting as time progresses to see how well these intrusive practices hold up in court when we file motions to suppress in drug crimes cases or any criminal case. But, it will also be interesting to see how long this cozy relationship between corporate america and law enforcement continues.

The DEA has already been using information collected by NSA and Verizon in its drug prosecutions, and were training the agents to “recreate” how they found that data. Since Mr. Snowden revealed what the NSA has been up to, the NSA has revealed its data mining of billions of calls as well.

Sex Crimes – Study brings accuracy of state expert testimony into question

Published on: September 6, 2013 | By Conaway & Strickler, P.C.

A wide variety of factors can influence the outcome of a sex crimes case. However, a verdict may come down to which party presented the most convincing evidence and testimony. Throughout the course of a criminal trial, witnesses who can offer specific insight are often called to testify in order to sway a jury. These individuals are expected to rely on their experience and sound professional judgment to present an accurate interpretation of evidence.

In many cases involving sex crimes, forensic psychologists may testify about the issues involved in a case. Their testimony can play a big role in whether or not an individual is fit to stand trial or what kind of sentence should be handed down if a conviction is reached.

According to a study conducted by researchers at a major university, forensic psychologists may not always be unbiased. In fact, they may present an opinion in court based on who they believe hired them. For instance, if prosecutors bring a psychologist into court, that person may feel inclined to present an especially unflattering portrait of the defendant regardless of whether or not it’s an accurate assessment.

Georgia sheriff acquitted of 27 criminal counts

Published on: August 21, 2013 | By Conaway & Strickler, P.C.

When a person is brought to court on criminal charges, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. In order to reach a conviction, prosecutors must demonstrate a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Put simply, a person is considered innocent until proven otherwise.

Of course, law enforcement official may push criminal charges and launch an aggressive prosecution, even when there isn’t sufficient evidence. Why would such a serious effort be made in this scenario? This is the exact question some people are likely asking after a Georgia sheriff was cleared of several fraud charges.

According to reports, the sheriff of Clayton County was originally charged with 27 felony counts related to abusing the power of his office. Even before the trial began, the court dropped two of the criminal counts, yet the remaining charges were still quite steep. In the end, the man was absolved of all the charges, as the jury found him not guilty of racketeering, theft, making false statements and other felonies.

Criminal Defense – First Offender Act in Georgia

Published on: August 15, 2013 | By Conaway & Strickler, P.C.

Criminal Defense – If you have had no prior convictions, the court at the state level can sentence you under the First Offender Act. Certain violent crimes, serious sex crime offenses and DUI charges are exempted from this Act and you cannot get First Offender treatment for those offenses.

But, if you are sentenced as a first offender and you successfully complete ALL terms of your sentence, the court will discharge your case without conviction. You can tell all employers that you have not been convicted of anything. There are two pitfalls to point out here. One – most employers do criminal background checks, and while you are on first offender probation, this case will show on your record. Second, if you don’t successfully complete the terms of your sentence, the court can revoke the balance of your probation and revoke your first offender status.

A good thing that comes with a first offender conviction is that you can retain your right to vote, own or possess lawfully a firearm. These are rights that you would ordinarily lose if you are convicted of a felony in the state of Georgia.

Drug Crimes Sentencing Reforms

Published on: August 13, 2013 | By Conaway & Strickler, P.C.

Defending a drug crimes case may finally get easier. Attorney General Eric Holder made an announcement yesterday at the American Bar Association annual meeting that federal prosecutors will stop seeking longer mandatory sentences for many non violent drug offenders. This, allegedly, is part of a new effort to focus on violent crimes and national security. The federal prison population is bursting at its seams, and as part of the government’s cuts on spending, they are focusing on ways to reduce the prison population. I am hoping this signifies a significant shift in policy in the war against drugs.

This new drug crimes policy will allow prosecutors to not put specific drug amounts in their indictments allowing for more leeway in sentencing. Currently, there is a 5 year mandatory minimum sentence for possession of 28g, or about an ounce, of crack cocaine. Diverting cases from the prison system to community service and drug treatment programs, to me is a no-brainer. The Smarter Sentencing Act, introduced August 1, 2013, aims to allow judges greater flexibility in sentencing at the federal level. I am interested to see if this proposed bill goes anywhere. It should.

As a criminal defense attorney who practices in both the federal and state level, I can tell you flexibility is key. Each and every case I have had has unique circumstances that deserve to be heard by the judge. At the state level, there are already “drug courts” and “mental health courts”. Both of those are examples of court systems that allow for individualized review of cases. A blanket, one size fits all approach to the criminal justice system does not work.

Criminal Defense: Second Amendment challenges to Gun Bans

Published on: August 9, 2013 | By Conaway & Strickler, P.C.

Our criminal defense attorneys at Conaway & Strickler, PC know how to help you avoid being arrested or convicted for Firearm Offenses.

The Second Amendment under the Bill of Rights under the United States Constitution states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Recent case law and legislation clearly indicate otherwise. It is well settled that one cannot have a firearm in court houses, schools, airports and the like. In District of Columbia v. Heller (554 US 570 (2008)), the court ruled that the Second Amendment is not unlimited, and is not a right to “keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”. The court also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms pass constitutional muster.

Please see criminal defense attorney Meg Strickler on Fox news discussing the right to bear arms and the Second Amendment. She discusses that the right to bear arms is not absolute. The public housing authority in this situation has a legitimate right in maintaining a safe environment. She goes on to discuss that if it was a private property owner, they would have even more rights in contracting in their leases special stipulations. When one rents an apartment, one often negotiates whether to have pets, when to play loud music, how many roomates one can have, etc. It is important in private lease situations to read all stipulations so that one does not sign away the right to bear arms/possess a gun in their own home.

Georgia Passes Law against Mugshots.com

Published on: June 21, 2013 | By Conaway & Strickler, P.C.

The State of Georgia has passed legislation, effective May 6, 2013 , that makes it illegal to charge a fee to remove booking photographs of exonerated people from websites. Please see

http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/display/20132014/HB/150

I can’t tell you how many clients have called me and said that prospective employers saw their mugshot on line and declined to hire them or current employers got wind of an arrest and fired them. Or, worse yet, family members, friends, etc have seen their mugshots and even though their cases were ultimately dismissed, the mugshot and accompanying charge lives on forever damaging their reputation. I have several clients that have had mugshots remain on the internet EVEN AFTER PAYING MUGSHOTS.com AND having their cases expunged.

When a Client says….”My spouse wants to drop the battery charge against me”

Published on: April 25, 2013 | By Conaway & Strickler, P.C.

I hear this question often.

The problem is that once you are charged with some sort of domestic violence charge, you are now facing charges from the State, not the alleged victim. As a result, your spouse cannot simply “drop the charges” and the case will go away. Even if your spouse chooses not to cooperate with the State and not testify, the State can still proceed with the case. The State can use the alleged victim’s statements made on the day of the incident. The 911 transcripts, photos taken and the statements made by law enforcement that responded to the 911 call can also come in as evidence against you.

There are, however, ways to still combat a domestic violence charge. Feel free to contact us and we can explain what can be done to avoid a conviction.

Fourth Amendment Search Issue Goes to the Dogs

Published on: April 9, 2013 | By Conaway & Strickler, P.C.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on March 26,2013 in Florida v. Jardines (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-564_5426.pdf )

that the use of a drug-sniffing dog to investigate the front door of a home was a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Thankfully, the Supreme Court ruled this way – or we’d have police trolling apartment complexes, buildings, public spaces, etc with an army of intrusive sniffing dogs. The justices ruled that having a dog sniffing at one’s door was indeed a search, and thus subject to the limitations of the Fourth Amendment.

Whether a police officer bringing a drug dog to sniff the door to a residence constitutes “trespassing” is an interesting issue brought up in this case. We will see how this court’s ruling will be played out as time progresses. The court found it unnecessary to determine whether the officers violated Jardines’ “reasonable expectation of privacy”, instead they focused on whether the officers’ physical intrusion on the porch established that the search had occurred.