Recent Blog Posts

Extreme DUI in Arizona

Phoenix Criminal Defense Attorney — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 22:45:00 GMT

Many people who have been arrested for an extreme DUI don't know what they're facing and they have significant concerns as to what their future will hold. A first time extreme DUI involving a range of .15 to .20 blood alcohol concentration carries with it a range of penalties including at 30 day jail term. Under recently enacted changes to Arizona's DUI laws, most courts will allow 24 of these 30 days to be served outside of the jail under "home detention". There are also financial penalties which usually total $6,154 depending on how much jail time is ordered and how much the court orders the defendant to pay for his or her jail time. Unfortunately, there are some courts out there that don't allow for home detention.

In addition to court imposed penalties, MVD will also take action against your drivers license when your charged with an extreme DUI. A typical extreme DUI license suspension assuming you have a relatively clean record and you don't have any DUI priors requires a suspension of 90 days - 30 days during which no driving is permitted and 60 days of to and from work. After the entire 90 days are served, the Motor Vehicle Department will reissue your license upon payment of a reinstatement fee and completion of an alcohol screening. Unfortunately, many people neglect to take these affirmative steps after completing their suspension and, unbeknownst to them, continue to have a suspended license. This can be problematic, especially if you get pulled over for another DUI.

Also, the court will order screening and classes. Some judges require completion of a Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) victim impact panel. This program is in addition to the mandatory alcohol classes that will be ordered after your screening is completed. The amount of hours that one has to do tends to vary, and with an extreme DUI the hours can be more than that typically required for a regular DUI. If the screening agency believes that the defendant suffers from a significant alcohol problem, they might order more classes.

Phoenix criminal defense attorney Joshua Davidson is a former prosecutor who can help you understand exactly what happens with the classes and some things to watch out for. While the temptation is to panic and to be very concerned, the good news is that a knowledgeable and experienced DUI attorney can help you resolve your case. Contact the firm for more information today.

"Setting aside" a conviction

Phoenix Criminal Defense Attorney — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 20:30:00 GMT

Any person convicted of a crime, upon fulfillment of their conditions of probation or sentence and discharge by the court, may apply to the judge who pronounced sentence or imposed probation, to have the judgment of guilt set aside.

An application to set aside the conviction may be made by the convicted person or by the convicted person's attorney or probation officer.

If the application is granted, the judge shall set aside the judgment of guilt, dismiss the accusations or information and order that the person be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the conviction.

Even after a conviction is "set aside," it can still be used against you, for example:

Driver's licenses may be suspended and revoked
The conviction may still be used as a prior conviction
Revocation of hunting licenses and other actions by the Game and Fish Commission

Persons who may not have their convictions "set aside"

Persons convicted of crimes involving the infliction of serious physical injury.
Persons convicted of crimes involving the use or exhibition of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
Persons who are required to register as sex offenders.
Persons convicted of crimes for which there has been a finding of sexual motivation .
Persons whose conviction involved a victim who was a minor under fifteen years of age.
Persons convicted of DUI and Aggravated DUI.
Persons whose conviction involved violation of certain traffic laws like driving with a suspended, revoked, cancelled or refused license and other traffic laws.

If you have been charged with a crime and would like to speak with a Phoenix criminal defense attorney about your case then you should contact the firm at 602-814-0518 and schedule a consultation. Attorney Joshua S. Davidson understands how important your rights are to you and will be able to provide the defense you deserve.

Tips for Successful Probation and What to Do When Probation Ends

Joshua Davidson — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:30:00 GMT

Tips for successfully completing probation

Keep in contact with your probation officer
Do your best to stay employed
Participate in required substance
abuse treatment
Make payment of all fines and fees
assessed against you
Don't be afraid to keep your
probation officer informed if you
cannot make required payments
Do not commit any crimes
- Even being charged with a crime can result in your violation of probation
- A person with a felony conviction faces a mandatory prison sentence for their second conviction

Earned time credit

Persons on probation can earn an early release from probation. To earn early release, a person must make monthly payments, complete community restitution hours, and make progress toward case plan goals.

Getting an undesignated class 6 felony reduced to a misdemeanor

If you were convicted of a crime that was a class 6 felony that was left "undesignated" you can have that reduced to a misdemeanor if you successfully complete probation.

Having an undesignated class 6 felony reduced to a misdemeanor is not automatic.

You must file a motion, which is a request to a judge to have the felony conviction redesignated to a misdemeanor.

Ask your probation officer about having your first felony conviction vacated and your class 6 undesignated felony reduced to a misdemeanor when you are released from probation. You can also contact the attorney who represented you for help with a request to have your felony reduced to a misdemeanor.

Forms to restore civil rights and have class 6 undesignated felonies reduced to misdemeanors can be found at the Maricopa County Clerk's Office Self-Service Center.

Civil rights suspended due to a felony conviction

The right to vote
The right to hold public office
The right to serve as a juror
Rights affecting security at prison facilities
The right to possess a gun or firearm

Restoration of civil rights

The civil rights of first time felony offenders, except for the right to possess weapons, are

automatically restored if the person completes their term of probation or receives an absolute discharge from imprisonment and pays any fine or restitution imposed.

A person who has been convicted of two or more felonies must request that their civil rights be restored by the judge who discharged him or her from probation.

A person who has been convicted of.two or more felonies and who was sentenced to prison may have his or her civil rights restored by the judge who sentenced that person .

This request may not be made until at least two years from the date of their absolute discharge from imprisonment.

Restoration of the right to possess a gun or firearm

A person convicted of a "dangerous offense" may not request restoration of the right to possess or carry a gun or firearm.

A person convicted of a "serious offense" may not request restoration of the right to possess or carry a gun or firearm for ten years from the date of discharge from probation .

A person convicted of any other felony offense may not file for the restoration of the right to possess or carry a gun or firearm for two years from the date of the person's discharge from probation.

To learn more about how a Phoenix criminal defense attorney can help you, please contact the firm today.

U.S. Supreme Court : Attorneys are Required to Advise Noncitizens of Immigration Consequences

Joshua Davidson — Mon, 10 May 2010 05:08:00 GMT

In Padilla v. Kentucky, the United States Supreme Court recently held that criminal defense attorneys are required under the Sixth Amendment to the Unites States Constitution to inform non citizen clients of the immigration consequences of their guilty pleas.

The Padilla case arises from a state post-conviction proceeding in which Mr. Padilla sought to vacate his plea based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. He pled guilty to a drug trafficking charge after his counsel misadvised him that the plea would have no effect on his lawful permanent residence. In fact, the drug trafficking conviction was an aggravated felony, the most serious type of offense for immigration purposes which results in nearly automatic deportation. Notwithstanding that Mr. Padilla had been a permanent resident for forty years and a U.S. veteran of the Vietnam War, he faced deportation from the U.S. for this conviction, he was not eligible for any defenses to deportation, and would be barred permanently from returning to the U.S.

In its decision, the Supreme Court first discussed whether deportation was a direct or collateral consequence of a criminal conviction, as the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel has only applied historically to direct consequences. Writing for the majority of five members of the Court, Justice Stevens stated that it was difficult to classify deportation as a direct or collateral consequence, because[d]eportation is an integral part - indeed, sometimes the most important part - of the penalty that may be imposed on noncitizen defendants who plead guilty to specified crimes." Padilla, 2010 U.S. LEXIS at *15.1 "Although removal proceedings are civil in nature, deportation is nevertheless intimately related to the criminal process." Id. at *18, citing INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984). While not finding that deportation is a direct consequence of a conviction, 2 the Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel includes advice regarding deportation, because of the close connection between crimes and deportation and the fact that "removal is practically inevitable" for anyone who has committed a deportable offense. Padilla, 2010 U.S. LEXIS at *14. Consequently, the standard for effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment, as set out in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), applies to such advice.

Burglary vs. Robbery - What is the Difference?

Joshua Davidson — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:30:00 GMT

Although the terms "burglary" and "robbery" are used interchangeably the two offenses are entirely different under Arizona criminal law.

Burglary is generally defined as the unlawful entry onto someone else's property with the intent to commit a theft or felony therein, whereas robbery is generally defined as using force or intimidation to facilitate the taking of property from another person. In most cases when someone is accused of breaking into a house that does not belong to them and committing a theft inside, charges of burglary in the second degree are usually filed. If the person is armed during the commission of a burglary, the offense could be charged as burglary in the first degree, which is a very serious offense under Arizona law.

The severity of robbery charges can likewise be affected by the facts surrounding the case including whether the alleged robber possessed a weapon (either real or simulated) or whether the individual was in the company of one or more accomplices when the robbery was committed. Whether the underlying offense is a burglary or a robbery, the use of a gun or other weapon during the commission of the offense may permit the prosecutor to charge the crime as a dangerous offense. Dangerous offenses are very serious under Arizona law and require mandatory prison time upon a conviction even for a first offense.

If you have been accused of burglary, theft, robbery or any dangerous offense, contact an experienced Criminal Defense Attorney in Phoenix today.

Know and Exercise your Rights if You are Stopped for DUI

Joshua Davidson — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:04:00 GMT

Arizona Revised Statute 28-1381(a)(3) (otherwise known as driving under the influence of drugs) makes it a class one misdemeanor to drive or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while a drug or its metabolite is in your system. In other words a person can be found guilty of DUI in Scottsdale while being completely sober. This is especially true in cases involving marijuana where it can take a month or longer for the metabolite to clear out of the drivers' system after it was last taken. A conviction under 28-1381(a)(3) does not require any proof that the person is impaired even to the slightest degree. Nevertheless the penalties associated with a guilty finding are no less severe than those that come along with a conviction for driving while impaired.

28-1381(a)(3) charges demonstrate the importance of exercising ones right to refuse field sobriety tests exercising one's right to remain silent during questioning. All the police and the prosecutor essentially need to obtain a conviction under this law is proof that a drug or its metabolite is in the driver's system. This can ordinarily be established through a simple urinalysis test which can be very difficult to defend in court. Legally however the police may be unable to obtain a urine sample unless they have probable cause to believe that you are actually under the influence during their contact with you.

Typically police officers obtain a urine sample one of two different ways. Most commonly officers utilize Arizona's implied consent law under which a person arrested for DUI could face a driver's license suspension of 12 to 24 months if they refuse to provide a sample of blood, breath or urine after arrested for DUI. If the individual refuses to comply with the implied consent law the suspension will be imposed and the officer can obtain a search warrant by contacting a judge (often by telephone) and providing information regarding the traffic stop to the judge and requesting that the judge make a finding that probable cause exists thereby authorizing the judge to issue a search warrant. If a search warrant is obtained it often authorizes the police officers to use whatever reasonable force is necessary to obtain the bodily fluid sample.

Regardless of whether the police obtain a search warrant or use implied consent to obtain a bodily fluid sample they cannot move forward without probable cause. Probable cause is most commonly established during a DUI investigation through the administration of field sobriety tests. These tests include the finger to nose test, the one leg stand test and other tests including those that require you to follow the police officer's finger as it's passed back and forth horizontally. Motorists have the right to refuse these tests and in most cases should exercise that right. Poor performance on these tests can be used to form the basis of probable cause thereby allowing the officers to invoke implied consent or even obtain a search warrant. Because it can be difficult to dispute one's performance on these tests and the officer's assessment of your performance is subjective and not subject to verification, the better practice is to not participate in them.

What is the Difference Between a Grand Jury and a Preliminary Hearing?

Joshua Davidson — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 01:00:00 GMT

Felony charges such as forgery, aggravated DUI and possession of dangerous drugs are filed in the superior court on either an indictment or an information. These forms are collectively referred to as charging documents and the manner in which they are prepared is governed by Rule 13 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. When a felony case is initiated in court it must first go through a probable cause determination before the matter can be set for trial. There are two different forms in which this can occur.

The first is called a grand jury this is where the prosecution presents the case to a group of citizens outside the presence of the defendant and the grand jurors are asked to determine whether probable cause exists based on the evidence presented to them by the prosecution. If the grand jury finds probable cause they return an indictment which then becomes the charging document in that particular case.

Alternatively a felony charge can be initiated through a preliminary hearing which is conducted in a manner very similar to that of a trial however during a preliminary hearing there is no jury rather a judge is the fact finder and the burden of proof is much lower than that ordinarily required at a criminal trial. At a criminal trial when a person could potentially be imprisoned if convicted our constitution requires that the prosecution provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt before that can occur. During a preliminary hearing however the prosecution is required only to demonstrate that probable cause exists for the case to move forward in the court system. If a preliminary hearing is held and the judge finds probable cause the state is permitted to file a document called an information which would be used as the charging document throughout the remainder of that case.

Because felony cases involving indictments are initiated through the grand jury where neither the defendant nor the defense attorney are present the prosecutor has special obligations to present the evidence in a fair and impartial manner and present evidence that is clearly exculpatory meaning that it tends to show that the person accused is not guilty. If the prosecutor fails to present the evidence to the grand jury in this manner the case could be remanded to the grand jury for a re‑determination of probable cause.

Although the grand jury was once reserved for more serious cases like second degree murder and sexual conduct with a minor the Maricopa County attorney's office has been utilizing the grand jury much more broadly over the past three years and typically sends less-serious felony cases through that process including those involving allegations of possession of Marijuana and forgery.

Why do I Have Two Court Dates?

Joshua Davidson — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 22:51:00 GMT

Many felony charges like possession of drugs, aggravated assault and robbery are filed by the county attorney's office in a section of the Superior Court referred to as the Regional Court Center. When cases are filed in the Regional Court Center a defendant is typically given two court dates - a status conference and a preliminary hearing. Although only the preliminary hearing is required by the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, the prosecutor's office has been scheduling status conferences for several years now in an effort to resolve cases prior to a preliminary hearing being conducted.

At the status conference the prosecutor will typically provide copies of the police reports to the defense attorney and engage in preliminary discussions which may result in a negotiated settlement of the case. If the case is not resolved at the status conference then the matter will proceed to a preliminary hearing where the prosecutor will be required to present evidence to the court and demonstrate that probable cause exists in order for the case to continue moving forward in the court system.

In 2007 the county attorney's office drastically reduced the number of cases for which it would actually conduct a preliminary hearing and began instead to send cases to the grand jury. The Rules of Criminal Procedure do allow the prosecutor's office to obtain an indictment from a grand jury in lieu of conducting a preliminary hearing and in most instances the prosecutor will proceed in that fashion and an actual preliminary hearing will seldomly occur. In the least serious of felony cases such as possession of marijuana and some aggravated assault cases the prosecutor's office will utilize a preliminary hearing but the remainder of most cases end up going to the grand jury. Unlike a preliminary hearing a grand jury presentation is what's called an ex parte proceeding where neither the defendant nor the defense attorney is present.

Because the defendant is not there to defend himself the prosecutor has special obligations when presenting evidence to the grand jury. Those proceedings are transcribed by a court reporter and made available to the defense after an indictment is returned. If there are any irregularities in the grand jury presentation or if the prosecutor fails to present evidence in a fair and impartial manner in the defendant's absence, legal grounds may exist for the case to be remanded to the grand jury for a re‑determination of probable cause.

Contact Phoenix Criminal Attorney Joshua S. Davidson today if you have any questions about your felony charges.

Scottsdale May Permit Home Detention for DUI Cases

Joshua Davidson — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 05:33:00 GMT

Drivers accused of DUI in Scottsdale currently are unable to serve home detention in lieu of jail time as is an option in many other jurisdictions located in Maricopa County including Phoenix and Chandler.

That may change when the Scottsdale City Council convenes on April 27 and considers a home detention program which may take affect this summer. Cities in Arizona that already allow individuals convicted of DUI to serve home detention typically require that a portion of the actual jail sentence be served at the jail but allow the individuals to serve the balance of the jail time at home while being monitored with an ankle bracelet. Because Arizona has such strict penalties for individuals convicted of DUI, the ability to participate in a home detention program could have a tremendous impact on one's ability to remain employed, stay in their home and avoid serious disruption to their family and personal affairs.

If the program is adopted it would be a welcome change to the Scottsdale Municipal Court. Defending DUI charges in Scottsdale is becoming an increasingly difficult task given the recent changes implemented by the Scottsdale City Prosecutor. With limited exceptions, the Scottsdale City Prosecutor will require individuals charged with DUI to plead guilty to the specific DUI offense (such as extreme DUI) with which they are charged as part of any plea agreement. In other words the prosecutor will often be unwilling to reduce the jail time one might be facing if convicted at trial even if the individual is willing to enter into a plea agreement and give up their right to trial.

Regardless of whether home detention becomes an option for drivers charged with DUI in Scottsdale, the consequences of a DUI conviction will remain serious. If you are facing DUI charges in Scottsdale or any other jurisdiction in Maricopa County contact Scottsdale DUI Attorney Joshua S. Davidson today for your free initial consultation.

Five reasons you should never submit to a “Preliminary Breath Test”

Joshua Davidson — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 23:40:00 GMT

Many police agencies in the greater Phoenix area are utilizing devices commonly known as "Preliminary Breath Tests" or "PBT's" in connection with their DUI investigations. As explained below, most Phoenix criminal defense attorneys and Scottsdale DUI attorneys agree that it is usually a bad idea to take a PBT.

As a preliminary matter, it is important to understand the difference between these PBT's and the breath tests that are administered using a much more complex machine known as the Intoxilyzer. The PBT is a small handheld unit that police officers commonly keep with them in their patrol vehicles. The PBT units are approximately the size of a standard VHS video tape and usually have a short disposable mouth piece affixed which is white in color. As the name implies, these machines are typically used during the early roadside stages of a DUI investigation, before the motorist is placed under arrest. The equipment used by most police agencies to administer a PBT is not approved by the Arizona Department of Public Safety for use as an "evidentiary test" and the results of the PBT are therefore inadmissible in court and cannot be used as evidence during a DUI trial.

Conversely, Intoxilyzer breath tests are customarily given after the motorist is placed under arrest for DUI. Although the accuracy of the Intoxilyzer can be effectively challenged in court by a skilled DUI practitioner, it is generally considered more accurate than its smaller and portable counterpart, the PBT. If the officer who administers the test is certified and the test is administered properly, the Intoxilyzer results are generally admissible in court. The Intoxilyzer can easily be distinguished from the PBT because the equipment itself is much larger, has a long tube connecting the machine to the mouthpiece and is typically administered after the individual is arrested and advised that his drivers license will be suspended for a year if he does not agree to test. Whether an individual should submit to the Intoxilyzer test or refuse depends on a number of factors. It is therefore advisable to politely request an opportunity to consult with an attorney before deciding whether to take the test. Because the police will usually seek a search warrant and obtain a blood sample if the Intoxilyzer is refused, agreeing to take the breath test is oftentimes, but not always, advisable.

Agreeing to blow into a PBT, on the other hand, is usually not recommended for the following reasons:

1. The police can impound your vehicle for 30 days based on the PBT results.

Under Arizona law, the police can impound your vehicle and keep it for 30 days if you are arrested for the offense of Extreme DUI. The police cannot make an Extreme DUI arrest unless they have probable cause to believe that the driver's blood alcohol concentration is at least .150%. Many jurisdictions, including Scottsdale and Chandler , use blood testing in lieu of the Intoxilyzer after they make a DUI arrest. Because the results of a blood test are not known until long after the individual is arrested, the PBT represents the only opportunity these agencies have to obtain evidence of your blood alcohol concentration while they can still take your car. Even though PBT results cannot be used as evidence during a DUI trial, they can nevertheless be used by the police to make an Extreme DUI arrest and justify impounding the driver's vehicle.

2. PBT results can be used by the police to make an arrest and obtain additional evidence.

The police cannot place somebody under arrest without a warrant unless they have probable cause to believe they committed a crime. DUI is no exception to this well established rule of law. As set forth above, police officers typically cannot conduct an evidentiary value blood alcohol concentration test (via blood or breath testing) until after the driver has been arrested. If the driver was operating the vehicle properly, refuses to submit or performs well during field sobriety tests, or the officer involved otherwise lacks enough evidence for his probable cause, the driver might avoid arrest or have any evidence that was obtained subsequent to an unlawful arrest suppressed by the court. However, if that same driver submits to a PBT, the results might provide a legal justification for the officer to make a DUI arrest and continue with his investigation.

3. Preliminary breath testing increases the length of contact with the police.

Police officers are not limited to using the results of field sobriety tests and PBT's when forming their probable cause to make a DUI arrest. In addition to the results of these "tests", officers can also rely on general observations they make regarding the odor, appearance, demeanor, balance and coordination of an individual. Keep in mind that the PBT is held in the officer's hand while the subject provides his or her breath sample. At an arm's length, the officer will be provided the opportunity to make detailed observations regarding these characteristics. If the police officer observes anything that is consistent with alcohol impairment during this contact, those observations will be used to both justify an arrest and as evidence during a subsequent trial.

4. PBT's are neither accurate nor reliable.

Preliminary breath testing results are not admissible in court for good reason - the equipment used and the manner in which they are obtained is not scientifically sound. The author personally represented a client who was charged with Extreme DUI and had his vehicle impounded based on a PBT result of nearly .400%. When his blood was subsequently tested by the police crime lab, they determined that the blood alcohol concentration was only .140% (under the Extreme DUI cut-off). In other instances, officers may use a slightly elevated PBT result to charge someone with DUI and the case will later be dismissed or reduced when the blood testing results demonstrate that the driver was actually well under the limit. Although individuals in those circumstance may ultimately avoid a DUI conviction and the penalties associated with it, the embarrassment, stigma and humiliation that comes along with being arrested is seldom forgotten.

5. Unlike the Intoxilizer, PBT equipment does not generate a hard copy of the test results.

Both the Intoxilyzer 8000 and its predecessor, the Intoxilyzer 5000, produce a "Test Record Card" when a breath test is conducted. This document contains the times and results of each test. Although the accuracy and reliability of these tests are often the subject of much criticism, these documents provide a clear record of the results obtained by the officer who administered the test. Instead of generating a written test record card, PBT's simply display the test results in a small LED window for a brief period of time after the test is completed. The lack of a tangible record from the PBT means that only the officer who administered the test will ever know what exactly what the results were. Whether it be because of an honest mistake or, less frequently, an unscrupulous officer, the PBT result could magically increase before it is documented in the officer's report. Without a paper trail to corroborate the results observed by the officer, a DUI suspect might never know that his or her PBT results were not accurately reported.

Police officers will rarely, if ever, tell you that submitting to a preliminary breath test is voluntary. Regardless of whether the officer suggests that you "will be in more trouble" if you don't agree to the test or asks you to blow "just to make sure you're okay to drive," it is important to understand that you have the absolute right to refuse. Before agreeing to a PBT, an informed Arizona motorist will keep these rights in mind together with the considerations listed above.

Blood testing in DUI cases

Josh Davidson — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:49:00 GMT

A common misperception of blood alcohol testing is that the results of the prosecution's test cannot be challenged in court. In reality, a skilled DUI defense attorney who understands both the law and science behind forensic alcohol analysis can do just that.

In many courts, including Scottsdale Municipal Court, blood testing is conducted using a process known as headspace gas chromatography. This technique is designed to ascertain the level of ethanol in a person's blood by measuring that amount of alcohol floating in the air above the blood sample in a sealed vial. Before the "headspace gas" is measured, the test vials are prepared using another machine referred to as a pipetter which is expected to measure precise amounts of blood and another solution into the test vial. If either of these liquids are introduced into the test vial in an improper amount, the test results could be effected.

Reliable blood alcohol testing also requires that the blood be collected, preserved and handled appropriately prior to the testing process. For example, the collection tubes used by the police are supposed to have both an anticoagulant and a preservative pre-packaged inside the tube prior to use. These agents are designed to prevent the blood from clotting and/or decomposing. Even though forensic scientists have repeatedly established that the presence of either decomposition or clotting can artificially increase the results of an alcohol test, police crime labs typically do not conduct any testing to verify that the anticoagulant or preservative is present in the blood sample.

There are many other nuances to blood alcohol testing that must be addressed in order to effectively challenge a blood test in a DUI case. Given Arizona's strictly enforced extreme DUI laws which can mandate a 45 day jail sentence based on a blood test result alone, it is crucial to have the blood test evidence in your case scrutinized and challenged by a knowledgeable and experience DUI attorney.

If you have questions about blood alcohol testing in you case, please contact DUI attorney Joshua S. Davidson today to schedule a free initial consultation.

Welcome to Our Phoenix Criminal Defense Blog

Phoenix Criminal Defense Attorney — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:11:00 GMT

We are pleased to announce the launch of our Phoenix Criminal Defense Blog.

Arpaio and County Attorney to Face Possible Lawsuit

Joshua Davidson — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:11:00 GMT

Prominent attorney Michael C. Manning delivered correspondence to the county attorney and sheriff requesting that the agencies preserve evidence that be relevant to anticipated legal action against the two. In his letter, Manning writes:

Please be advised that we have been retained to represent The Honorable Gary

Donahoe. Our client is investigating and intends to pursue all his legal options for the

actions leading up to and arising out of the investigation, arrest, and malicious

prosecution of Judge Donahoe. It is anticipated that legal action will follow.

This letter constitutes a demand that all information, physical and

electronic, relevant to or bearing on Judge Donahoe andlor the following topics be

preserved: discussions and decision(s) to commence the investigation and

prosecution of Judge Donahoe, and all investigations, reports, inquiries, and the like

regarding Judge Donahoe from 2008 through the present; the decision to investigate,

criminally charge, prosecute, and then dismiss those charges against Judge Donahoe;

the discussions and decisions to sue Judge Donahoe in federal court as a racketeer;

discussions and decisions regarding pursuit and dismissal of that civil suit; and any

and all communications between and amongst all officers and agents of the recipients

of this letter and/or the press concerning the topics listed above.

Manning concludes his letter with:

We expect, too, that you will take all action necessary to identify those

individuals who might possess the information described in this letter, inform them of

the litigation hold and instruct them to avoid engaging in any activity that would

result in the destruction or alteration of this information.

Should you fail to preserve the information, evidence and data described

herein and litigation ensues, sanctions can be imposed for the willful destruction of

evidence. We expect that you will honor this demand. Please let me know if you do

not intend to honor this request.

The county attorney recently dismissed the criminal complaint previously filed against Judge Donahoe after another judge threw out the politically motivated charges against Don Stapley. If you have been charged with a criminal offense in Phoenix, contact anexperienced defense attorney today.

Blood Testing in DUI Cases

Joshua Davidson — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 06:41:00 GMT

Blood testing is becoming more and more popular when it comes to DUI testing. Instead of using the breath testing instruments, most of the law enforcement agencies are now taking blood tests. The officers in the state of Arizona are drawing the blood of the drivers themselves instead of sending them to a medical facility for the test. Not a very long time back, Arizona was the only state where the officers were required to draw the blood of the people who they suspected to be driving under the influence of alcohol. Even though people are not sure whether all officers are carrying out this test, Arizona has still made a name for itself for being a leading state where its officers carrying out blood tests and it has also influenced other states to follow this act. Many Phoenix criminal defense attorneys have handled cases involving blood samples collected directly by the police.

Some Phoenix area DUI officers have been trained as phlebotomists and are regularly taking blood samples from DUI suspects themselves. Mostly, the officers are trained to draw blood and they use needles to take out the blood samples from the suspects. The tubes that they use to store the blood in contain an anticoagulant and preservative so that the blood test can give an accurate result. By using the preservative, bacteria will not grow in the blood. If bacteria grow in the blood then it will lead to the neo-genesis of alcohol present in the blood. Anticoagulant is added in the tube so that the blood that is collected will not clot.

There is a reason why the law prefers blood testing and this is because of the fact that this test can not be challenged by defense attorneys. This is because blood tests are more reliable than breath testing. There is a drawback of this kind of testing and it is that the process is a complicated one, costs more and the results take longer to obtain. Nevertheless, a skilled Scottsdale DUI defense attorney may still be able to successfully attack the reliability of a blood test in a DUI case.

Keller Sentenced to 4 Years for Smuggling Prison Contraband

Joshua Davidson — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 06:34:00 GMT

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/10/30/20091030keller1030-on.html

A Phoenix Criminal Attorney who was addicted to methamphetamine allowed his dependence on the drug to cloud his judgment and as a result, he was sentenced to four years imprisonment on Friday. He was also sentenced to seven years probation for smuggling heroin and a cellular phone into a prison.

The name of the Phoenix Criminal Lawyer is Jason Keller and he delivered the smuggled goods to a prisoner who belonged to a Mexican Mafia. This lawyer admitted to carrying out this illegal task during the proceeding at the Maricopa County Superior Court. He made an apology to his clients and his loved ones for dishonoring the legal profession.

Keller was a defense attorney and he admitted that he made the mistake of being abused by drugs even though he had seen his past clients making the same mistake. He said that he understood he had done a lot of damage and that he wanted to fix the damage. Keller also hoped that one day he would be able to redeem himself and that he was not of the opinion that being in the prison for a long term would be of any good.

The prosecutors wanted Keller to be in jail for up to a decade but Steven Lynch, the Commissioner, felt that the Keller was regretting his action and he also did not have any criminal record before. Moreover, the attorney was also a victim of substance abuse and was clinically depressed.

Lynch said that it was terrible and that he knew that the public knew it was a terrible thing to do. He also said that the benefit of the situation was that it was discovered sooner than later before any damage was made.

Keller's lawyer, Ulises Ferragut Jr., requested for a three-year sentence; which is the minimum permitted under a plea bargain.