Your Fort Lauderdale Criminal Defense Lawyer advises: “failing to plan is planning to fail”

Posted by:

failing-to-planMy 30 years as a Fort Lauderdale criminal defense lawyer and former prosecutor have confirmed the wisdom of that old saying,

“failing to plan is planning to fail.”

If you’re being prosecuted for crimes in Florida, it’s best that your defense lawyer file all of the latest, most compelling defense motions on your behalf; otherwise, you won’t be provided ANY evidence or material that can and WILL help you in your case, and you won’t receive all of the benefits to which you are entitled. Here is just one example:

“Defense Motion to Compel State to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence”

“The Defendant, ___ [ put your name here! 🙂 ], by and through counsel, moves this Honorable Court. For an Order compelling the State to disclose any and all exculpatory evidence in and relating to this case and the charges against the Defendant ____ [you again!], including but not limited to physical evidence, expert and opinion evidence; or, in the alternative, we are asking the Court to impose sanctions including but not limited to the dismissal of the current charges with prejudice.”

“This information relating to testimony or physical evidence, as requested, must include not only evidence tending to exonerate the defendant, but evidence tending to mitigate the nature or severity of the charges as well as evidence of conflicting, contradictory, inconsistent or confusing material or statements which could constitute impeachment evidence, as well as exculpatory or mitigating evidence which must be supplied by the State, in its entirety, along with all ‘material information within its possession or control as favorable to the defense.’ Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999); Way v. State, 760 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 2000); Melton v. State, 949 So. 2d 994, 1006 (Fla. 2006); Smith v. State, 7 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 2009).”

“This Court is reminded, most respectfully, that under ‘Brady,’ the State violate a defendant’s due process rights when it fails to disclose evidence that is favorable to the defendant and is material to either his guilt or the sentence imposed. This includes both exculpatory evidence (evidence that tends to negate the defendant’s guilt) AND impeachment evidence, ie, any evidence that would call into question the credibility of a State witness. The evidence is material ‘if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A ‘reasonable probability’ is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.'” United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 Sm Ct. 3375, 87 L. Ed. 2d (1985); Smith v. State, 7 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 2009) “


About the Author:

John M. Castellano is a Fort Lauderdale criminal defense attorney who has helped thousands of clients throughout Florida. While building a reputation as a premiere Fort Lauderdale DUI attorney, Mr. Castellano has worked tirelessly to develop strategies to best protect the rights of those arrested for DUI in Broward, Dade and West Palm. However, Mr. Castellano is not just a drunk driving lawyer. He has been a successful domestic violence attorney, drug trafficking attorney, as well as all other Felony and Misdemeanor cases.

Add a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.