Legal Blog - Moses & Rooth

Jan 11, 2021 | By Andrew Moses | Read Time: 2 minutes | Orlando News

Local Criminal Defense Attorneys Representing Capital Rioter

Local Man Identified in Images from Scene at Capitol Adam Johnson, aka “Lectern Guy”, has quickly become internet infamous. For those not familiar, Mr. Johnson, was not only one of the people who took part in last weeks riots, but he is also the one who posed with Speaker Pelosi’s lectern. According to the Statement of Facts Mr. Johnson was identified in the picture as being in the rotunda of the Capital building. According to the Speaker’s staff, the lectern was stored in the Speaker’s Suite before the riots began. Fortunately, the lectern was found on the Senate side of the capital and was not being sold on eBay as some places had reported. On January 6, 2021, Mr. Johnson may have made the worst decision of his life, however, he seems to have been making wiser decisions since then by hiring two high-powered local criminal defense attorneys, David Bigney and Dan Eckhart. While Mr. Johnson’s case is being prosecuted in the DC Circuit, he will appear today in the Middle District of Florida in Tampa and will be in front of Judge Christopher P. Tuite. Johnson is currently incarcerated and in the custody of the US Marshals, but he will be transported to court for the hearing. Mr. Johnson will be told the charges he is currently facing and perhaps most importantly his continued incarceration will be discussed. The US government may seek detention in which case the Federal Magistrate will determine if they feel that pretrial release is appropriate or if Mr. Johnson will continue to be detained. Alternatively, the Magistrate could rule that Mr. Johnson will remain in custody until the Judge in DC make a ruling on continued detention. The Court may consider detention if they consider Mr. Johnson to be a flight risk, if they feel that he is a danger to the community, or if the Judge determines that no condition of release will reasonably assure the appearance of Mr. Johnson. Should the Judge determine that release is appropriate, they have a number of conditions that could be imposed as a condition of release. They include: Electronic monitoring Travel restrictions Curfew A prohibition on possession of a firearm or other weapon A prohibition on the use of drugs or alcohol A monetary bond A restriction on communication with certain people A restriction on accessing Social Media or Internet Forums Updates Coming Soon Today will be interesting for Mr. Johnson and a number of questions will need to be answered. Will the Government agree to release or seek detention? Will the Judge go along with the request for release or continued incarceration? Will the government give us some insight into what Mr. Johnson’s role was on January 6? Was he present when the Capital was initially breached or did enter later on? Is he alleged to have caused any destruction? Was he the one who took the Speaker’s lectern? We will follow up on the case after the 2pm initial appearance

Aug 7, 2020 | By Andrew Moses | Read Time: 3 minutes | Scholarship

Announcing the 2020 Legal Scholarship Winner

We’d like to say thank you to all those who took the time to submit applications for our legal scholarship. After carefully reviewing all of them, we are pleased to announce the winner of our 2020 scholarship. Glenn Korman Congratulations! Glenn graduated from Boston University, Summa Cum Laude, majoring in International Relations and minoring in Political Science. He’s now attending New York University School of Law with an interest in environmental and energy law. Glenn tells more of his story in his scholarship essay, which he has agreed to have published below. We invite you to read it. “On paper, I am a suburban guy from the Northeast, but this role is too confining for me. As a kid, weekends were spent listening to my grandmother tell tales of 1950s Toronto. Summers were spent in the cornfields of Iowa with my extended family. For college, I moved to Boston to experience a city rich with history. Since then, I have added Stevensville, Michigan and Dresden, Germany to the list of places I have called home. Growing up in Buffalo, I witnessed an uneven economic revival that benefited only those that fit a certain mold. My time in the Midwest drove home the importance of crossing the political aisle. In Dresden, I was in the epicenter of the social friction that has been rocking Germany. Empathetic conversations with students from Syria opened my eyes to the heavy emotional toll that being stripped to the identity of “refugee” can have on someone. My experience at Boston University reinforced the value of intellectual diversity, and due to my interdisciplinary education, my fear that specializing in one area comes at the cost of ignorance of other fields was never realized. The widespread geographical distribution of each place I have called home has given me a myriad of diverse perspectives that I can draw upon when confronting political, economic, and social issues in my chosen area: environmental and energy law. Each of these distinctive communities has highlighted the importance of engaging with the local population to fully understand the unique complexities of their situation and their willingness to accept change. My exposure to a variety of environmental problems in these areas, such as fluctuating lake levels and flooding in the Great Lakes Basin, solidified my interest in environmental and energy law. Issues stemming from climate change, pollution, and environmental degradation often disproportionally impact lower-income and minority segments of our population. It is next to impossible to address the legal and policy questions that arise out of humanity’s use, and oftentimes abuse, of the environment without maintaining a strong sense of empathy for at-risk individuals, endangered species, and those that rely on the industry whose practices are being scrutinized. Specifically, I envision myself working to improve the state of energy governance in the United States. We lack a coordinated and comprehensive framework that reduces the overall environmental impact of these systems. Currently, environmental consequences are primarily considered during the siting process of new energy projects, forcing local and regional ecosystems to adapt after a cost-benefit analysis on the project’s potential impact is performed. Rather than working aggressively to minimize the environmental disruptiveness of these technologies from their inception, we address the majority of these issues at a stage where few substantive adaptations can be performed. While functional, this cost-benefit approach reduces the value of the environment by not properly considering monetary damages likely to result, such as a reduction in tourism or property values due to an increase in pollution, as well as benefits that are nearly impossible to monetize like personal enjoyment resulting from the use of pristine natural spaces. Furthermore, by using a discount factor that limits the future outlook on how harmful our current actions are, these analyses prevent us from doing justice for future generations. Advocating for and eventually shaping an updated legal framework regulating and incentivizing more environmentally friendly developments in this area is how I intend to use my Juris Doctor. Although a cost-benefit analysis will still have a place within this framework, considering the more abstract value of the environment must be incorporated as well. For this reason, I feel compelled to pursue a legal career where I can meaningfully impact this field while also practicing in a manner that emphasizes empathy and humanity.” – by Glenn Korman

May 6, 2020 | By Andrew Moses | Read Time: 2 minutes | Sex Crimes

Title IX Updates

Guilty until proven innocent. Forget due process, it barely exists. Cross-examination of your accuser, forget about it. Am I speaking about the criminal justice system in Russia? No, I am speaking about the Title IX hearing held on college campuses around the country for allegations of sexual misconduct. Let me repeat that last part, “allegations of sexual misconduct”. The first time I assisted someone with a university hearing for allegations of sexual misconduct I was blown away. Notice I said “assisted someone”. You see, at these hearings they did not allow an attorney to speak or present evidence or be present in an advisory capacity. The accused had to defend him or herself. Certainly, it makes sense that an 18 year old kid would be expected to conduct a hearing that had ramifications for the future of their education much less the rest of their life. Additionally, the accused could not ask the accuser questions. The person who is making accusations, very serious accusations was free from having to answer any questions from the accused. And the standard of proof? Preponderance of evidence, which means that they were more likely than not to have committed the infraction. Thankfully, some of these rules have been amended and will be going into effect in August of 2020. The U.S. Department of Education has issued the final version on how schools handle allegations of sexual harassment and assault. The new rules allow for the accused and the accuser to submit evidence and participate in cross-examination in live proceedings. The provision allowing for cross-examination of the accuser is already drawing criticism from victim’s rights groups. They fear that allowing the accuser to be questioned will have a chilling effect on a victim willing to come forward with accusations of sexual misconduct. While victim’s rights are important, a more balanced approach to these proceedings were needed. In a statement released by the Department of Education Secretary Devos said “This new regulation requires schools to act in meaningful ways to support survivors of sexual misconduct, without sacrificing important safeguards to ensure a fair and transparent process.” I think that is all anyone could really ever ask for, support the victim, but make sure that the accused is treated fairly.

Apr 15, 2020 | By Andrew Moses | Read Time: 2 minutes | Politics

Top Ten Thoughts on Coronavirus (Legal Edition)

10. Lawyers don’t seem to understand that the quarantine doesn’t mean the dress code goes out the door. I know working from home is new for us attorneys and appearing via video conference is foreign, but did it really take a judge to write a letter regarding appropriate work attire. For some reason there were lawyers appearing on video conference who were wearing casual shirts (ok, not really ideal but not crazy), a beach cover-up (unless you’re hoping to distract the judge from your poor legal argument this seems to be a bad idea), and finally the guy who appears shirtless (he either has the confidence of a super hero or has zero fucks left to give). 9. I love that Judges are now making available virtual pre-trial conferences. I know 9Th Judicial Circuit Judge Harris has been doing this for a while. Makes you wonder why it took a worldwide pandemic to make this procedure nearly universal. 8. Indecent exposure is still a crime. COVID-19≠No Laws. Apparently, a person in Taneytown needed that reminder. The local police department posted in Facebook “Please remember to put pants on before leaving the house to check your mailbox. You know who you are. This is your final warning.” On a side note, when I first heard this story, I assumed like everyone else did, must have happened in Florida. So on behalf of all Floridians, thank you Maryland. 7. Harvey Weinstein thought he was getting out of jail because of coronavirus. 6. Michael Avenatti IS actually getting out of jail because of coronavirus. 5. On a more serious note, Florida needs to amend statute 947.149, Conditional Medical Release. A person sentenced to prison in a federal case who is at higher risk of complication from COVID-19 has a vehicle to allow a judge to amend their sentence to terminate incarceration or place on house arrest. It is part of the recently passed First Steps Act in a section on Compassionate Release. The Florida statute doesn’t allow for this and places many vulnerable people at risk of severe illness or death. Our prisons were not built to handle or treat a pandemic and our judiciary should have the ability to address certain inmates with preexisting medical or age-related conditions. 4. Are law students around the country just faking internet issues if their professor calls on them to explain the Rule in Shelley’s Case? 3. President Donald Trump is looking into a pardon for Joe Exotic. 2. Stay at home orders were implemented to enforce social distancing. People are getting arrested and sent to jails. You know, places where people are crammed into small cells and can’t stay six feet apart much less self-isolate. Issue a fine, ok. Issue a criminal notice to appear, maybe. Take to jail, dumb and counterproductive. 1. Under Governor Desantis’s Stay at Home Order, lawyers are essential. However, my wife can’t say lawyers are “essential” without putting air quotes around the term.

Apr 13, 2020 | By Andrew Moses | Read Time: 2 minutes | Federal Crimes

COVID-19 and Getting Out of Prison

Many things are lacking in Florida’s correctional system, but maybe none more glaring right now than there is no mechanism to release non-violent offenders who are at high risk of developing complications due to COVID-19. Currently, there is no way for an attorney to request judicial screening for a just and humane amendment to a sentence, and no way for even the prison to request a judge review a prison term and determine if release is appropriate. The Federal government through the First Step Act which allows for compassionate release in certain circumstances. In fact, Attorney General William Barr has directed the head of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to review inmate records to determine if they are at a higher risk of developing complications due to COVID-19. The First Step Acts even allows for an inmate’s attorney to request the sentencing judge to decide if releasing someone from prison and placed on home confinement or supervised release is appropriate. The need for the Florida Legislature to add a provision for compassionate release is clearly seen by reviewing the statistics of the virus. As of April 12, there are 44 Department of Correction employees who have tested positive for COVID-19 and 36 inmates have tested positive as well. While this number may not seem large, we know that this virus is highly contagious, and these numbers will only increase. Inmates who have an underlying medical condition that make them susceptible to complications should have their sentence review by DOC and the sentencing Judges. The Center for Disease Control has states that certain groups are at a higher risk for severe illness if they contact COVID-19. These Non-violent inmates with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or pulmonary issues do not all need to be put as risk of developing complications from COVID-19. The Florida legislature needs to act. I do not envy the situation that our government is in currently. Speaking specifically about our state inmates this really is a no-win situation. The prisons were not designed to treat massive amounts of people who may become ill due to a new virus. The idea of social distancing in a prison setting is laughable. Public perception of releasing inmates is never popular. However, the government is in charge of these human beings, many of them vulnerable. The government owes it to the people they oversee to ensure their health. To quote Attorney General Barr, “The mission of BOP (Bureau of Prisons) is to administer the lawful punishments that our justice system imposes. Executing that mission imposes on us a profound obligation to protect the health and safety of all inmates.”

Mar 20, 2020 | By Andrew Moses | Read Time: < 1 minute | Criminal Defense

Guess We are All in this Together

The coronavirus or COVID-19 is affecting everyone. Restaurants and stores are shutting down and more are sure to be closing soon. Many government functions are being suspended including many court events. However, you know what isn’t being suspended? People are being arrested. Now more than ever it is extremely scary to be arrested with the fear of being stuck in jail during this pandemic. The Courts are still hearing “essential court proceeding” and the attorneys at Moses and Rooth are here to assist. Critical hearings are deemed to be first appearances, criminal arraignments as necessary, hearings on motion to set and modify bonds for people in custody. There are also hearings on juvenile delinquency detentions. The courts are also hearing situations involving this health emergency. Hearings are happening for violation of quarantine or isolation, violation of order limiting travel, violations of curfew, and violations for failure to close public or private buildings. Certain arrests require a hearing before a judge who can then set conditions of release. These crimes includes domestic violence cases, punishable by life cases, and other cases involving victims. It is important as ever to make sure that you have representation at that initial appearance to assist with the potential release from custody. Even during these crazy times you can turn to Moses and Rooth Attorneys at Law to assist you in this ever changing environment. Call at any time at 407-377-0150.

Feb 20, 2020 | By Andrew Moses | Read Time: 2 minutes | Personal Injury

What Is a Tortfeasor?

If you’ve been injured in any type of accident and are pursuing an insurance claim, one question that you’ll have to answer that will be asked by the insurance company is that of who the tortfeasor is in your claim. This word, along with other legal jargon, may not be one that you’re familiar with. At the law offices of Moses & Rooth, our experienced personal injury lawyers can help you to navigate the law and make sense of complicated terms and rules. Here’s what you need to know about the word “tortfeasor” and its implications in a personal injury claim– What Is a Tortfeasor? One of the best definitions for the word tortfeasor comes from the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. According to this source, a tortfeasor is simply one who commits a tort. So, what’s a tort? A tort is an act or an omission that causes harm or injury to another and amounts to a civil wrong. As a result, the courts can impose liability. There are three types of torts: strict liability torts, negligence torts, and intentional torts. Most injury cases deal with negligence torts. To sum it up, a tortfeasor is a party who causes harm to another by committing a tort. Why Does It Matter? If a party breaches the duty of care owed to another and harm to the latter results, the former party has committed a tort and can be held liable for the harm. However, in order to prove liability and recover damages, the injured party will need to prove the details of the tort. Namely, the following four elements must be established: the tortfeasor owed a duty of care to the plaintiff; the tortfeasor breached the duty of care; the breach of the duty of care was the proximate cause of harm; and the plaintiff suffered damages as a result. An insurance company will ask who the tortfeasor is in a claim because they need to know who breached the duty of care, the details of that breach, and who should be held liable. Someone who does not commit a tort cannot be held liable for the damages to another. Other Important Parties in a Personal Injury Claim In addition to the word tortfeasor–which, remember, is the person who commits the tort (civil wrong)–other important terms to know are: Plaintiff – the party who is bringing forth a lawsuit Defendant – the party against whom a civil action is being filed (i.e. the tortfeasor).

Nov 25, 2019 | By Andrew Moses | Read Time: 2 minutes | Gun Laws

Florida Police Have Confiscated Thousands of Guns

In response to multiple mass shootings across the country, many states have enacted red flag gun laws. Red flag gun laws allow specific individuals to petition the court to remove a family member or roommate’s legally owned guns or other weapons. Red flag gun laws are intended to prevent people with mental disorders or violent instincts from accessing weapons to commit a crime. If you have been charged with a violent crime in Orlando, Moses & Rooth Attorneys at Law can help. Our attorneys have extensive experience successfully representing clients, and we can do the same for you. Contact our Orlando criminal defense law firm today to schedule your free initial consultation. Florida’s Red Flag Gun Law The Florida legislature passed its own red flag gun law after the Parkland high school shooting that took place in 2018. The red flag gun law allows specific individuals to petition the court for risk protection orders. A judge will evaluate whether the defendant is a safety risk to him or herself or others. If so, the judge will order law enforcement officers to confiscate the at-risk individual’s guns. Thousands of Florida Residents Have Been Ordered to Surrender Their Firearms According to the Tampa Bay Times, since Florida enacted its red flag gun law, Florida courts have ordered 2,654 residents to surrender their guns and ammunition. These individuals are also prohibited from purchasing or owning a firearm for up to a year. The exact number of confiscated guns is not yet known to the public. Some gun owners only hold one weapon while others, like a man from Pinellas, turn in as 57 weapons. Florida police officers may have seized as many as 18,000 firearms so far. Concerns Regarding Florida’s Red Flag Gun Law Since the enactment of the law, Florida judges have ordered the confiscation of a resident’s weapons an average of five times a day. To issue the risk protection order, a judge must determine that clear and convincing evidence that the individual is a danger to him or herself or others exists. There is some concern that disgruntled ex-spouses or partners could call and falsely report another person’s dangerous behavior. What Happens to a Weapon that the Police Confiscate? Typically, police officers hold confiscated weapons in a vault until the time comes to return them. In some instances, an individual can transfer gun ownership to a family member, friend, or anyone else who is willing to hold them who undergo a background check. Can I Take an Attorney to My Hearing? Yes, we recommend working with a skilled attorney during your hearing. At Moses & Rooth Attorneys at Law, our attorneys have the skills and experience needed to represent you at a temporary risk order protection hearing assertively. We will advocate on your behalf and cross-examine any witnesses against you. Schedule your free initial consultation by contacting our Orlando criminal defense law firm today. Call 407-377-0150.

Nov 21, 2019 | By Andrew Moses | Read Time: 2 minutes | Violent Crimes

Florida State University Law Processor’s Murder Goes to Trial

In 2014, Daniel Markel, a law professor at Florida State University, was murdered. Prosecutors blame Markel’s ex-wife for his death, but only the hitman who committed the murder and his girlfriend will stand trial. The case went to trial in early October. After a trial that lasted only one day, the jury ruled to sentence Sigfredo Garcia for first-degree murder. The jury reached its decision within 30 minutes, perhaps due to the grisly execution-style murder. The prosecution argued that the jury should impose the death penalty, however the jury imposed a lifetime prison sentence instead. Hitman’s Girlfriend Will Likely Face Charges Next During the trial it was presented that in July 2014, the defendant traveled from Miami to Tallahassee with another man with the attempt to kill Markel. When he arrived at the law professor’s home, he murdered Markel execution-style in his Tallahassee garage. Prosecutors will attempt to charge the hitman’s former girlfriend for hiring him to kill Markel. During the trial, the defendant claimed that the other man in the car fired the gun, killing Markel. The second man in the car, Riveria, is currently serving a seven-year prison sentence for second-degree murder. Riveria pled to a lessor charge of second-degree murder charge in exchange for testifying against the defendant and his girlfriend. This case becomes even more complicated when it comes to who financed the murder-for-hire. Allegedly, the victim’s ex-in-laws spent $100,000 to fund it. Markel and his ex-wife underwent a bitter divorce. Before his death, Markel reportedly asked a Florida family court to stop his ex-wife’s mother from having unsupervised time with her grandchildren. The grandmother allegedly made disparaging remarks about Markel to his children. Prosecutors have not yet charged Markel’s in-laws for allegedly hiring the murderer of their ex-son-in-law. Orlando, Florida Criminal Defense Attorneys If you are facing a serious felony charge in Florida such as murder, rape, or burglary, it is wise to seek the legal help of an experienced criminal defense attorney. Our attorneys have extensive experience representing individuals accused of the following violent crimes: Assault Battery Possession of firearms Attempted murder In Florida, the conviction of a violent crime can result in serious fines, prison sentences, and a permanent criminal record. When a criminal conviction becomes part of your criminal record, you may have difficulty finding employment. You could be prohibited from working in specific employment fields. Furthermore, criminal convictions for violent crimes often come with a negative social stigma. Fighting your criminal conviction is extremely important. That is why Moses & Rooth Attorneys at Law work so hard to fight for our client’s right to a fair trial. We understand all of the common tactics used by Florida prosecutors and know how to combat them throughout the criminal process. Contact our Orlando criminal defense law firm today to schedule your free consultation.

Nov 18, 2019 | By Andrew Moses | Read Time: 2 minutes | Firearm Crimes

Florida Residents Push for Stricter Gun Law

Florida gun control advocates are pushing local legislatures to ban semiautomatic rifles with high-capacity magazines. Passing a ban on semiautomatic rifles is an ambitious plan, especially in a Republican-controlled state senate. Survivors and relatives of those killed in the 2016 Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando and victims of the 2018 Parkland High School shooting are advocating for the political movement. Gun control advocates will seek to propose an amendment to the Florida constitution on the 2020 ballot. Ban Assault Weapons Now is Behind Proposed Amendment Proponents of the semi-automatic weapon ban have formed a political committee called Ban Assault Weapons Now. The group has some bipartisan support. Al Hoffman, a Republican donor has already contributed $260,000 to the campaign. The group needs to gather the required amount of signatures to propose an amendment to the Florida constitution on the 2020 ballot. If the committee does acquire an adequate amount of signatures, the Florida Supreme Court must approve the language of the ballot proposition. The Ban Assault Weapons Now committee contends that many of the United States’ deadliest mass shooters have used semi automatic rifles. The Parkland shooter and the Las Vegas shooter, who killed 58 people, both used semi automatic rifles in their attacks. Opponents of the Proposed Constitutional Amendment The National Rifle Association (NRA) is opposed to the proposed amendment. One of the NRA’s most powerful lobbyists, Marion Hammer, lives in Florida. Further, Florida law has always been comparatively lax when it comes to gun restrictions. Some Florida Republicans are also opposed to outlawing semi automatic rifles. Republican Representative James Grant stated that the proposed amendment’s language is so broad that it could outlaw sporting guns in Florida. What Types of Weapons Would the Proposed Amendment Ban? The Ban Assault Weapons Now committee is seeking to ban sales of all new semiautomatic rifles and shotguns that are capable of holding over 10 rounds of ammunition in a detached or fixed magazine. The language of the proposed ban would target AR-15s and AK-46s. Most of these two kinds of popular rifles come with 30 round magazines. Some of the mass killers used semi automatic rifles with 100-round magazines. Does the Committee Have the Support of the Voters? The committee has only collected 106,000 signatures so far and needs a total of 766,000. A recent poll found that 59% of Florida voters supported a ban on assault weapons. Under Florida law, a constitutional amendment requires 60% voter support in order to pass. If You are Facing a Gun-Related Criminal Charge in Florida, We can Help If you are facing a gun-related criminal charge in Orlando, we can help. At Moses & Rooth Attorneys at Law, we have successfully defended many clients in guns or weapons-related charges. We know how to assertively defend our clients throughout the entire legal process. Contact our Orlando criminal defense law firm today to schedule your initial consultation.

This is a Custom Blog Title