Broward DUI Lawyer Blog

A Maryland case highlights the need for an experienced attorney to be at the defendant's side, especially when the case is a serious one. If something like this happens to someone in South Florida, the person should probably consider consulting with a Fort Lauderdale criminal defense lawyer.

In this situation the charge is murder, but what happened applies to a defendant facing any charge, including battery in Fort Lauderdale or drug charges in West Palm Beach. The criminal justice system is based on checks and balances. The defense lawyer is there to represent the suspect and keep the state accountable and ensure a fair trial. The judge is supposed to keep both sides in check and ensure they follow the rules.

But the system doesn't stop there. There are appeals courts and both state and federal supreme courts, all of which can look at the facts and make sure the defendant received a fair trial. If not, a new trial can be ordered, the defendant can get the charges dropped if the errors were egregious, and judges and prosecutors can be ordered removed.

In State v. Allen, a man was charged with murder in Maryland and had his rights violated not only in one trial, but also in a second.

According to court documents, Jeffrey Allen was at his friend John Butler's house one night in October 2001. Allen asked Butler to drive him home, but Butler refused. Allen then grabbed his friend's car keys, dangled them in front of the man and told him he'd just drive himself home.

That caused a fight and during the fight, Allen stabbed Butler with a kitchen knife, took the car and drove off. He later crashed the car and was arrested by police. A grand jury indicted him on charges of first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree felony murder, second-degree murder, armed robbery and a list of other less serious crimes.

During his first trial, a judge caused an irreparable problem when he told jurors that to convict him of first-degree murder, they could find that he intended to commit an armed robbery either before, during or after the murder. On appeal, a court ruled that an "afterthought" of robbery can't be used to convict someone of felony murder and they awarded a new trial on that charge only, upholding the convictions on the second-degree murder, armed robbery and other charges.

During the second trial, the jury was told the only charge they had to determine was whether the man was guilty of first-degree murder. During jury selection and again once the jury was set to deliberate, the judge -- despite objections from both sides -- told them the man had previously been convicted of the robbery.

In Florida, to prove felony murder, the state must show a person killed another while they were committing another felony, such as robbery, burglary or a sex crime. By telling jurors the man had been found guilty of the robbery, the judge did their job for them, finding one half of the allegation already true. They quickly convicted.

On a second appeal, a court struck down that conviction and ordered a third trial. It's unclear if the state has decided whether to continue down this path again. And while this is a murder case, judges make major mistakes in all types of cases. And while sometimes those mistakes can't be reconciled immediately, an appeal can sometimes help.