A “pocket warrant” is common street vernacular for a PCPR. The request is not a warrant at all. Usually, a “pocket warrant” or PCPR refers to an electronic notation in the LEO’s computer database that the authorities want to arrest a person and have reason to believe that that person has committed a felony offense. Unfortunately, the “pocket warrant” or PCPR is not a warrant and does not carry the force of law.
The Trial Dog
Anthony Candela is the Trial Dog and a Board-Certified attorney. He opened the Candela Law Firm, P.A. in 2014 and handles criminal trials and appeals (as well as estate planning, wills, and trusts). He received his J.D. from Duquesne University School of Law in 2000 and his B.A. in Political Science from King’s College in 1996. As an expert in criminal law and procedure, he has tried over a hundred cases to verdict. Since 2008, he has been certified and recertified by the Florida Bar in Criminal Trial three times. He has also argued several dozen appeals. In the federal system, he is admitted to the Middle District of Florida and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal. #candelalawfirm #thetrialdog
An “affirmative defense” is a defense which admits the cause of action, but avoids liability, in whole or in part, by alleging an excuse, justification, or other matter negating or limiting liability. In layman’s terms, “I did it, but my act is justified or excused.” If the defense is accepted by the jury, then the verdict must be “not guilty” because the entire criminal act is excused or justified (and, therefore, legally negated). If the defense is not accepted, the accused has admitted to all the elements of the offense (and usually convicted him or herself).
By design, it is the jury’s solemn responsibility to doubt everything and make the government satisfy the constitution’s extreme requirements. In this regard, a trial should be an exceedingly difficult proposition for the government regardless of its evidence.
You don’t say … or maybe you did. A brief explanation of witness impeachment by prior inconsistent statement.
The ability to impeach a witness is a trial skill that is perfected over time. It should not be undertaken lightly because a butchered impeachment of a key witness at trial can spectacularly backfire and unintentionally bolster the credibility of the witness. Although the principles of impeachment can be easily learned through studying caselaw, impeachment is better understood in practice and requires years to master. Watching an attorney perform a skillful impeachment is like watching a master craftsman carve a magnificent statute out of a single block of granite. It is akin to an artform. As with many trial skills, the more trial experience an attorney has, the better the attorney usually is at impeaching a witness. In this regard, there are no substitutes for trial experience and trial preparation.
Each potential Brady violation must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine the extent of the violation and the potential remedy to rectify the violation. Depending on the severity of the Brady violation, the remedy could be dismissal of the case.
There are many people who operate under the misunderstanding that only the very wealthy or those with complicated assets and property need wills when they die. The truth is everyone needs one. A will is a legal document that sets forth your wishes regarding the… Read More »Five Simple Reasons You Need A Will
If you or a loved one has been convicted and is appealing or about to appeal a felony conviction, seek legal counsel to determine if you qualify for an appellate bond. Keep in mind – -“You miss 100 percent of the shots you never take.” Wayne Gretzky.
The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result. A convicted defendant’s claim that counsel’s assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction
Many seasoned Florida practitioners are surprised to learn that the often standard, non-specific, “objection to the form of the question” or simply, “objection, form,” is legally insufficient to preserve an evidentiary objection for trial or review, and, therefore, useless.