Jacksonville Criminal Lawyer Blog

In Florida, a police officer may have a recording device in his/her vehicle. This obviously becomes important if the defendant makes statements after an arrest while sitting in the police car, whether to the officer, to another person detained in the vehicle or in any other context. Can the state use the secretly recorded conversations of a defendant in a police car at the trial?

In a recent robbery case south of Jacksonville, Florida, the defendant and his friend were stopped by a police officer who suspected them of committing a robbery nearby. The police officer put both of them in the back of his police car. In the back of the police car, the defendant made incriminating statements about the robbery in a conversation with his friend. These statements were recorded and used by the State against the defendant at the robbery trial.

The criminal defense lawyer tried to prevent the statements from being admitted at trial. He argued that the statements were hearsay and testimonial as they were obviously recorded to be used against a defendant at trial.

The court found that the secretly recorded statements were allowed in the trial. The defendant's own statements were his own admissions which are admissible at trial. As for the other individual in the police car with the defendant, the defendant's criminal defense attorney did not have a chance to cross-examine him, but his recorded statements were admissible because they were used to put the defendant's admissions into context. The statements were not testimonial because they were not made in response to any questioning by the police, but rather were spontaneous statements.

In criminal cases, the state may try and speak with the defendant's spouse to obtain critical evidence against the defendant. However, in Florida there is a spousal privilege which limits the state's ability to obtain testimony from one spouse against another spouse who is charged with a crime. However, this spousal privilege has limitations. There are instances where a spouse can testify against his/her spouse in a criminal case.

What is protected are confidential communications between the spouses. Even if the spouse/witness wants to testify to what the defendant/spouse told him/her, the defendant can prevent the spouse from testifying to any confidential discussions and communications between the two. For instance, if a defendant is charged with robbery and before the alleged incident, the defendant tells his wife in the privacy of their home that he really needs money and he's going to go out and get some, that would be a confidential communication that the state could not use against the defendant.

The spousal privilege is a well-recognized privilege in Florida, but it is not absolute. The communication must be confidential for it to be protected. If a spouse admits to incriminating information to his wife but also in front of a third party, the statement is not confidential and it is not privileged. If the defendant makes an incriminating statement to his wife and tells her she can share it with another person, or the defendant shares it with another person, the statement is no longer confidential and is unprotected.

In any criminal case where the state intends to question the defendant's spouse, it is important for the criminal defense lawyer to determine the scope of this questioning and make sure any confidential communications between the spouses are not disclosed and are kept out of court.

Most people are familiar with the word hearsay as they have heard the term on TV shows and other places. The evidentiary rules regarding hearsay are often misunderstood, not just by the general public, but also by lawyers. Basically, hearsay is a statement by a person not in court that one side is attempting to use in court to prove the truth of the matter referenced in the statement. As a simple example, if Bob comes in to court and tells the jury that Steve told Bob that Defendant committed the robbery, Bob's testimony is hearsay. As a general rule, hearsay is not admissible in court because the Defendant has a right to question Steve about what he saw, and he cannot do that if Steve is unavailable and the jury only hears what Steve allegedly saw through Bob's testimony. However, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule.

One exception is called the dying declaration. In a recent murder and armed robbery case south of Jacksonville, Florida, shortly after the incident, the police saw the victim in the hospital. The police officers showed the victim a photo lineup which included the defendant's picture. The victim could not speak, but he was apparently able to blink signifying an affirmative response when the police officers showed the victim the picture of the defendant. The victim later died, and the police officer came to court during the defendant's trial and testified the victim blinked while looking at the defendant's picture in the photo lineup to indicate the defendant was the person who robbed and shot him.

The criminal defense attorney argued to keep the evidence of this identification out of court claiming it was inadmissible hearsay. Inadmissible hearsay does not have to be an actual statement; it can also be an assertion like a gesture, pointing or blinking. However, the court disagreed. Under the dying declaration hearsay exception, if a person makes a statement or assertion while he/she reasonably believes his/her death is imminent and certain and the statement is concerning the cause of that death, that statement may be admissible hearsay in court. The witness does not need to expressly state that he/she knows death is imminent and certain if it is apparent from the circumstances that the witness would reasonably believe he/she is about to die.

In this case, the state presented evidence that the victim was in grave condition and it was clear that he was about to die. Because of that, the court found that the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule applied, and the police officer was allowed to testify to the victim's identification of the defendant as the robber and shooter. The obvious downside to the defendant was that the state presented critical evidence of his guilt without the defendant's criminal defense lawyer having an opportunity to cross-examine the victim about this hearsay evidence.

In Florida, in a lewd or lascivious molestation or battery case, or a sexual battery case, the credibility of the victim's testimony is often the most critical factor in the case. In many of these cases, the victims are children who may be less predictable in the things they say and may not appreciate the importance of telling the complete truth in a legal proceeding. In any case, but particularly in lewd or lascivious molestation or battery cases, the criminal defense lawyer's job is to question the victim to determine the accuracy of the victim's statement incriminating the defendant.

However, the criminal defense lawyer does not have free reign to ask the victim any questions and bring out bad things the victim may have done in the past. One area that would seem to be critical to determine the credibility of the victim would be prior, similar false accusations. For instance, if the victim is saying the defendant in the present case sexually assaulted her, should the criminal defense attorney have the right to inform the jury that the victim made a similar accusation of sexual assault against the defendant's brother two years earlier that proved to be false? It would seem like this would be important information for a jury to know about the victim. However, a recent Florida Supreme Court case said that such information would likely be inadmissible at a trial. The general rule is that the criminal defense lawyer may not bring out evidence about the victim's prior bad acts, including similar but false accusations about another person.

The criminal defense lawyer can attack the credibility of the victim, but he/she is limited in his/her methods. The criminal defense attorney can bring out the fact that the victim has a prior conviction(s) for a felony or a misdemeanor crime that involved dishonesty. For instance, if a person made a similar, false accusation of a sexual assault about someone else and was arrested and convicted for false report of a crime, the criminal defense lawyer would be able to inform the jury that the victim has a prior conviction. However, that is rare when dealing with young victims. The criminal defense lawyer also has the right to bring out any facts that tend to show the victim's testimony is biased or the victim has a motive to be untruthful. Therefore, if the victim has multiple false accusations against other people or one prior, false accusation against this defendant, that evidence should be admissible at the trial to show the victim is biased towards the defendant or has a motive for lying in this context.

Most people even marginally familiar with criminal law and evidentiary issues understand that there is a special relationship and privilege between a lawyer and his/her client and that a defendant's lawyer would never be able to testify against the client in a criminal trial. However, that seemingly obvious conclusion may not always be so clear. It is fundamental that the prosecutor is not allowed to have a defendant's lawyer testify against the client in a criminal case. However, whether the lawyer is actually that defendant's lawyer leaves room for interpretation.

This ambiguity most often comes up in a case where a company and an employee(s) of the company are being investigated. A question may arise as to whether the defense lawyer represents the company or the employee. For the employee, it may be difficult to tell. The employee may believe the lawyer is his/her lawyer, but that lawyer may actually represent the company instead. In many cases, their company's and the employee's interests are the same making it difficult to distinguish the actual client. If that is the case, the communications between the employee and the company lawyer may not be privileged and confidential and may be accessible by the prosecutor.

In a pending criminal case out of Philadelphia, a CEO of a company was convicted of obstruction of justice and sentenced to 18 months in federal prison. During the trial, the prosecutor was allowed to call the CEO's former lawyer to testify as to certain communications between the two that the CEO thought were privileged and confidential at the time. According to the CEO, he felt that he engaged the defense lawyer to be his individual lawyer, in which case all communications between the two should be privileged and confidential. However, the government alleged that the lawyer represented the company and was not the CEO's individual lawyer in which case the lawyer-client privilege should not apply. The defense countered that the CEO reasonably believed that the lawyer was his individual attorney and the client's/defendant's belief controls whether the attorney-client privilege is in effect.

This case and the decision to allow the lawyer to testify against the defendant is currently under appeal. For company executives and other employees who are being investigated or have been charged with a crime, this issue has serious implications in circumstances where there is an attorney involved but it is not perfectly clear whether the attorney represents the company or the person individually.

In any driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI) case in Florida, the state has to prove that the defendant was actually driving, or in actual physical control of, the vehicle. That seems obvious, but it may be problematic for the state in situations where the police respond to an accident and the drivers and others are out of the vehicles at the time. Accidents happen quickly, and sometimes, no one actually sees who is driving. Then, one may think it is as simple as the police officer asking who was driving. However, the initial discussion between the police officer and the driver about the accident is often inadmissible in a criminal case for DUI.

This is referred to as the Florida accident report privilege. This Florida law says that a driver is required to tell the police what happened after an accident. However, because this requirement affects a person's right to remain silent if there is possibly criminal activity involved, any statements the driver makes about the accident during the accident investigation phase are not admissible in a criminal case. When the state cannot use the statement by the driver that he/she was driving the vehicle, the state may have a very hard time actually proving the suspect was driving a vehicle.

Even where the statement that a suspect was driving is not protected by the accident report privilege, the statement is still not admissible in a DUI trial unless and until the state can prove that a crime was committed by substantial evidence independent of the statement. In other words, if there is insufficient evidence to prove that the suspect may have committed a DUI and the suspect then makes incriminating statements about committing a DUI, that statement will not be admissible in a DUI trial. So, before such a statement can be used against a defendant in a DUI trial, the state must have other evidence that he/she committed the crime. Going back to the original point, when an accident occurs and the police show up after the fact, a suspect's statement may be thrown out of a criminal trial if there are no solid witnesses or other evidence establishing that a DUI was committed.

Consider a situation where a crime occurs and the police believe they know who committed the crime. They obtain an arrest warrant, but they are not able to locate the suspect for some time. When they do find the suspect, the suspect runs from the police. At the defendant's trial for the original crime, is evidence that the defendant ran from the police admissible at the trial for the original crime in Florida? It depends.

When a person runs from the police when the police are arresting that person for a crime that previously occurred, the prosecutor may not be allowed to introduce evidence of the defendant's flight from police at the trial. It largely depends on how much longer the arrest, and the running from the police, occurred after the initial crime because the key question is whether it can be shown that the defendant ran from police due to consciousness of guilt for this particular crime. In other words, if the police are looking for person X for a robbery that occurred previously, can it be shown that person X ran from the police because he knew he was guilty of that robbery?

Obviously, one of the factors is how much time elapsed between the crime and the flight from police. The more time between those two events, the harder it is for the prosecutor to establish that the defendant had a reason to believe the police were looking for him for that particular crime. If the flight occurs a couple of days after the crime, it is more likely that evidence of the defendant running from police will be admitted at the trial. However, if it is months or years later, such evidence should not be admissible at the trial absent other facts suggesting the defendant knew the police were after him/her for that particular crime.