Blog
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
Minors who are charged with criminal offenses will often struggle to protect their rights during the legal process. In many cases, prosecutors will seek harsh sentences, and if a person is convicted, they may be required to spend significant time in prison, and they may also experience multiple types of collateral consequences after being released. Advocates for criminal justice reform are working to address the practices followed by prosecutors, and one issue that has been highlighted recently involves life sentences for minors who are tried as adults for violent crimes.
Recently, a coalition of prosecutors who work at the federal, state, and local levels suggested that the United States should limit the use of life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders. The group urged Attorney General Merrick Garland to review cases where prosecutors seek these types of sentences and only allow these harsh penalties in cases where a juvenile offender is incapable of rehabilitation. It also suggested that for all other juvenile offenders, sentences should be limited to no more than 30 years.
Over the past decade, advocates for criminal justice reform have worked to highlight problems in the justice system, and some government officials have begun to implement progressive policies meant to address these issues. Unfortunately, the rates of violent crime have increased over the past couple of years, and this may affect efforts to reform the justice system. As more people become concerned about violence, they have begun to elect prosecutors and other officials who promote “tough on crime” policies. This may make it more difficult for those who are facing criminal charges to receive fair treatment and avoid serious penalties.
In recent years, people throughout the United States have been made aware of inequities in the justice system. The Black Lives Matter movement has highlighted the abuses that police officers often commit against minorities and people of color. Organizations such as the ACLU have worked to educate people about the uphill battle that many people face when they are charged with crimes, the lengthy sentences that apply even for low-level offenses, and the collateral consequences that can affect people’s lives when they are convicted. As a result, several states have begun to make reforms, such as by reducing or eliminating cash bail or limiting the types of cases where minors may be charged as adults. Some prosecutors have also made efforts to address these issues, such as by pursuing shorter sentences or limiting prosecutions for non-violent offenses.
U.S. government officials regularly take action to address multiple types of federal crimes and pursue charges against those who are accused of violating the law. Fraud is a key issue that is addressed by federal investigators and prosecutors, and a recent report from the Department of Justice has highlighted the types of cases that are being pursued. The Justice Department’s Fraud Section is continuing to focus on prosecuting white collar crimes and other financial crimes, and it is likely to take legal action against individuals and businesses who are accused of committing fraud or related offenses. By understanding the types of cases the DOJ regularly addresses, those who may face accusations of fraud or other white collar crimes can be sure they are prepared to defend themselves against federal charges.
The DOJ Fraud Section has units that investigate and prosecute multiple different types of cases. These units include:
People throughout the United States were shocked by the events of January 6, 2021. Protestors who believed that former president Donald Trump had not lost the election in 2020 engaged in violent and destructive behavior as they stormed the U.S. Capitol building. Since those events, many people who participated in the riot have been arrested and charged with crimes. Because the riot involved the destruction of government property, many of the protestors are facing federal criminal charges. However, some have been troubled by what seem to be lenient sentences for people who attempted a violent overthrow of our country’s democratic processes.
While more than 100 people have been charged with and convicted of crimes related to actions they took in the January 6 riots, many people have been troubled by what seems to be lenient treatment for these defendants. Recently, U.S. District Chief Judge Beryl Howell questioned whether the way the Department of Justice is pursuing charges in these cases is causing confusion for the American public about the attack on the U.S. Capitol.
The United States has some of the highest rates of incarceration in the world. With more than 200,000 inmates who have been convicted of federal crimes, the government has been looking for ways to reduce the prison population and allow those who have served time to be released and reintegrate into the community. While Congress passed the First Step Act in 2018, allowing certain inmates to be released based on Earned Time Credits, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) had not taken steps to implement these new policies until 2022. However, there are a number of issues that may affect prisoners’ ability to secure early releases.
Thousands of prisoners have become eligible for release under the First Step Act. Those who are in prison may qualify for home confinement or residence in a halfway house as they begin to take steps to ensure that they will be able to rejoin society successfully. Those who are currently under home confinement or in residential transition centers may be eligible for a full release, allowing them to secure housing and employment.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, many courts throughout the country have struggled to hear cases while also protecting the health and safety of participants. To prevent the spread of infections, in-person proceedings have been limited in many cases, and some courts have begun using technological tools to allow certain participants to connect remotely. While the use of remote technology has provided benefits in certain situations, many people have raised concerns about how these practices may affect a person’s right to a fair trial in criminal cases. While courts throughout the United States have addressed this issue in different ways, one recent court ruling may indicate that the use of remote video testimony may violate defendants’ rights in criminal trials.
The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides criminal defendants with the right to confront their accusers. A person should be able to directly question a witness during a criminal trial. When witness testimony is provided in person, a jury can observe how the person answers questions, and their facial expressions, body language, and other responses may indicate whether they are telling the truth and whether they are trustworthy. Testimony provided through video or other remote technology may not provide a jury with enough information to make a decision in a criminal case.
The criminal justice system often imposes harsh punishments on people who are convicted of crimes. While certain sentences may seem to be appropriate for those convicted of serious offenses such as murder, they can result in a person spending most of their life in prison, even if they committed these crimes while they were a minor. Advocates for criminal justice reform have noted that scientific research has shown that people’s brains continue developing until they are 25 years old, meaning that offenders who have committed these types of crimes at a young age may not have been fully aware of the consequences of their actions. In recognition of this and as part of ongoing efforts to focus on rehabilitation for those who have been convicted, the Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles has begun taking action to reduce the sentences of certain offenders.
There are a variety of situations where a person may be accused of committing crimes involving theft or misappropriation of money. Many of these cases fall under the category of white-collar crimes, which typically involve the theft or misuse of people’s financial information or other actions in which a person obtains money fraudulently. White-collar criminal cases will often involve accusations of wire fraud, and in some situations, a person may face federal charges. According to the FBI, instances of wire fraud have increased significantly over the past few years. Those who are accused of these types of crimes will need to understand the nature of an offense and the potential penalties they may face if they are convicted.
Fraud includes any actions in which a person obtains money or property through false pretenses. When these actions involve the use of electronic communications, including phones or internet services, they may be considered wire fraud. Because wire fraud will often involve messages or other forms of communication that are transmitted across multiple states, these offenses may be prosecuted at the federal level.
Defendants in criminal cases often face an uphill battle as they respond to the charges against them. Law enforcement officials have significant resources that they may use as they investigate an alleged crime, gather evidence, and build a case against a person. However, defendants have certain rights, including protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Recently, the Connecticut Supreme Court issued a ruling that may affect the types of searches that may be performed and the evidence that may be allowed in cases involving drug crimes.
In the case of State of Connecticut v. Ricardo Correa, the defendant was charged with multiple drug-related offenses. During his initial trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence, claiming that the evidence was uncovered due to the use of a drug-sniffing dog and an officer’s visual observations that were performed prior to obtaining a search warrant. This motion was denied, and the defendant was convicted and sentenced to nine years in prison. The defendant appealed the case, but the Appellate Court ruled against him. However, after a further appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court’s decision and found that the search was unconstitutional.
While the COVID-19 pandemic is continuing to affect the people’s lives in many ways, one issue that has become a concern is the significant increase in the murder rate throughout the United States. Between 2019 and 2020, the U.S. saw the largest increase in number of murders committed since the 1990s, and the murder rate increased again in 2021. There are a number of possible reasons for this increase, and because so many people may be affected by this issue, it will be important for those involved in these cases to understand how to address potential criminal charges.
In 2020, the total number of murders in the United States increased by nearly 30 percent, with a total of over 21,000 murders. This increase affected people throughout the country in both large cities and areas with lower populations. However, Black people were much more likely to be affected. Nearly half of murder victims in 2020 were Black, and during this time, Black people were eight times more likely to be murdered than white people. While complete data on murders for 2021 have not yet been released, some preliminary data indicate that murders may have increased as much as 15 percent since the previous year.
50 Founders Plaza
