In State v. Bowers, 37 Fla. L. Weekly S. 136 (February 23, 2012) the Florida Supreme Court ruled that an officer testifying in a suppression hearing must have first-hand knowledge of the facts that are the subject of the testimony.  The prosecutor in Bowers attempted to use the Fellow Officer Rule as an evidentiary crutch to substantiate the State’s case in flagrant violation of basic evidentiary rules governing the use of hearsay in a suppression hearing.  Basic rules of hearsay generally preclude testimony from witnesses who do not have direct knowledge of the subject matter at issue.  The Fellow Officer Rule allows law enforcement to act upon knowledge generated collectively through other officers. 

      The historical use and misuse of Lara v. State, 464 So.2d 1173 (Fla. 1985) ended succinctly as the Court slammed the State’s expectation that they are entitled to a blanket hearsay exception in suppression hearings.  The Bowers court ruled decisively and definitively that the prosecutor’s brazen disregard for the Constitutional rights of the defendant and the state’s use of the hearsay rules as proverbial toilet paper would not stand in a state governed by equitable principles of law.   The days of the double standard in Florida courtrooms have disappeared and prosecutors must live by the same laws they purport to enforce.

    The Law Offices of Colón & McNelis, P.A. aggressively represents people throughout Central Florida in Personal Injury, Social Security/Disability, Immigration, Family, Criminal Defense, and Probate matters.  Colón & McNelis, (863) 534-3777, www.colonandmcnelis.com.

     Supreme Court Hands Government their Asinine for Laughable Lafler Argument

    A defendant was charged with Assault with Intent to Murder in a Michigan court.  After receiving flawed legal advice from his attorney, he rejected a favorable plea offer and opted for trial.  At trial, the defendant was convicted of all offenses and received a substantially longer sentence than contemplated in the plea offer.  It was conceded that the defendant’s counsel was deficient in providing erroneous legal advice concerning the plea bargain, but the government contended that the defendant suffered no prejudice because the trial that lead to the convictions was conducted fairly.  The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Lafler v. Cooper clearly and sensibly repudiated the government’s asinine argument that the occurrence of a fair trial somehow cured an error occasioned by defense counsel’s bad legal advice regarding a plea offer.

    The Court held that in order to establish the basis for relief, the defendant must demonstrate that but for the deficient legal advice, the defendant would have accepted the plea offer, and that the outcome at trial was significantly more punitive than the terms contemplated in the plea offer.  The Court reaffirmed the Strickland standard which has governed ineffective assistance of counsel cases for nearly thirty years, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 

    The Law Offices of Colón & McNelis, P.A. aggressively represents people throughout Central Florida in Personal Injury, Social Security/Disability, Immigration, Family, Criminal Defense, and Probate matters.  Colón & McNelis, (863) 534-3777, www.colonandmcnelis.com.