What is a “Paradee” Motion? Criminal defendants have a broad right to discovery in order to prepare and present a defense. When a defendant requests records that are subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act or other legislation, the court may screen the confidential records in camera to balance the right of the defendant to prepare and present a defense against the rights of victims and witnesses to privacy. However, this in camera review is not a right and defendant must first establish a “plausible showing” that the information sought would be “both material and favorable to his defense.” This Training Update will discuss seven basic facts that judges need to know to properly rule on a Paradee motion.
CLICK ON LINK BELOW TO READ FULL UPDATE
Pro Se Defendants: All judges eventually find themselves confronted with a defendant who requests or demands the right to represent himself/herself at trial.
This could occur for a number of reasons; perhaps defendant holds strong anti-government beliefs (i.e. Posse Comitatus), defendant fails or refuses to retain private counsel after the court has denied a request for the public defender, or defendant is simply overconfident and believes he/she doesn’t need an attorney.
Although defendants have a constitutional right to represent themselves at trial, exercising that right creates a host of constitutional and procedural pitfalls that judges must be prepared to overcome. This update will address the following 6 key topics:
❶ Three General Principles That Always Apply;
❷ Applying the Correct Legal Analysis & Making Two Specific Findings;
❸ Appointment of Standby Counsel – Ten Facts You Need to Know;
❹ Two Additional Ways a Defendant Can Waive the Right to Counsel;
❺ What if Defendant is Mentally Ill?
❻ Judge’s Authority to Regulate the Trial with a Pro Se Defendant.
TO READ THE FULL UPDATE CLICK THE FOLLOWING LINK:
Judges rely on urine drug screening (UDS) tests in a myriad of criminal and civil settings. In criminal cases, defendants are often ordered by the court not to use or possess alcohol or mood altering chemicals as a condition of their pretrial release or probation. In family court cases, parents are often ordered to undergo UDS as part of a court-ordered child custody evaluation. The results of the UDS can have tremendous adverse consequences for defendants (incarceration or loss of privileges) or for divorcing parents (loss of custody or parenting time). The potential for false-positive urine drug screen (UDS) results presents a due process dilemma for the presiding judge. When and under what circumstances can a judge feel comfortable relying on the results of a urine drug screening test without a secondary confirmation test? This training update will address the following six topics:
- WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT FALSE POSITIVE RESULTS
- WHAT COMMON SUBSTANCES CAN CAUSE FALSE POSITIVES?
- MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY RECOMMENDATIONS
- WHAT SHOULD JUDGES DO?
- SPECIAL CONCERN – CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS
- URBAN MYTH – FALSE POSITIVES BASED ON 2nd-HAND SMOKE
CLICK ON LINK BELOW TO READ MORE
QUESTION: What procedure should a judge follow when a defendant, charged with being a “Fugitive from Justice,” makes a Rule 5 first appearance on an in-custody or bail calendar? This Update also includes a script that judges can follow in-court and covers procedures that apply in Habeas Corpus hearings…..
CLICK LINK BELOW TO READ MORE
On April 17, 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a long awaited decision in Missouri v. McNeely in which the Court addressed when and under what circumstances, during drunk-driving investigations, law enforcement can conduct a blood test without a warrant. The McNeely decision reverses the Minnesota Supreme Court decision in State v. Shriner, 751 N.W.2d 538 (2008).
QUESTION: You receive a phone call at 3 a.m. from law enforcement asking you to approve a telephonic search warrant. What seven (7) procedural steps MUST be followed for a telephonic search warrant to be lawful? This update outlines a step-by-step guide for judges and law enforcement to follow
CLICK ON LINK BELOW TO READ MORE
Posted in CRIMINAL PRETRIAL, DWI & Blood Tests - Missouri v. McNeely, SEARCH & SEIZURE, Search Warrant - Telephonic, Telephonic Search Warrants
Tagged Blood test, breath test, DWI, McNeely, Search Warrants, Telephonic, Warrantless Searches