Blog
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
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.
People who are convicted of federal crimes often face harsh prison sentences. Fortunately, some programs are available to help these prisoners be released early while also encouraging them to re-enter society successfully and avoid criminal activity in the future. The First Step Act, which was passed in 2018, created a program that allows prisoners to earn time credits against their sentences. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) recently implemented a new rule that will put this program into effect, and it may allow thousands of prisoners to be released in the near future.
The programs created under the First Step Act are meant to help convicts take steps to limit the likelihood that they will re-offend after being released, while also ensuring that they will be productive members of society. The law allows prisoners to earn time credits by participating in Evidence-Based Recidivism Reduction (EBRR) programs such as literacy programs or occupational education programs, as well as Productive Activities (PAs) such as Alcoholics Anonymous, drug abuse treatment programs, and programs that address physical and mental health and provide education and job training.
As the COVID-19 pandemic enters its third year, large numbers of people throughout the United States are still becoming ill. To protect public safety as much as possible, government institutions, including the court system, are continuing to take steps to minimize the potential spread of infections. These measures may affect both criminal and civil cases, and those who are involved in these matters will want to understand how they may be affected and how they can make sure their rights will be protected during legal proceedings.
While state and federal courts in Connecticut have implemented measures meant to protect people’s safety, they have been required to make repeated changes to address potential risks. Most recently, the spread of the highly-infectious Omicron variant of Covid has led the U.S. District Court of Connecticut to pause all jury trials and jury selections until at least February 1, 2022. While this will affect cases heard in federal courts, state courts may be able to continue operating during this time.
One of the worst things a parent can face is the claim that they have committed child abuse or otherwise caused their child to suffer harm. In these situations, a parent may not only face criminal charges, but an investigation by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) may result in children being removed from a parent’s home and other issues that will affect a person’s relationship with their child and other family members. Unfortunately, false claims of child abuse or neglect are all too common, and parents who are accused of committing crimes against children will need to understand the best ways to approach these situations.
Over the past decade in Connecticut, reports of suspected child abuse by teachers or other staff members at schools have increased by 150 percent. This increase is likely due to a change in the law that requires “mandated reporters” to notify the Commissioner of Children and Families or a law enforcement agency if they reasonably suspect that a child has been abused or neglected or is at risk of physical injury or other forms of harm. Mandated reporters include teachers and school employees, as well as coaches, social workers, or counselors.
Fingerprints are generally considered to be unique identifying factors. The patterns in the skin on a person’s fingertips are distinctive, and the latent prints left behind at a crime scene may be used to identify an alleged perpetrator. Because of this, fingerprint evidence can be a crucial factor in a criminal case. However, in recent years, the reliability of this type of evidence has been called into question, and criminal justice advocates have raised concerns about the possibility of false convictions based on fingerprints.
While people may believe that everyone has a unique fingerprint, this has never been proven, and statistical analyses have not been able to determine the probability that multiple people may have the same fingerprints. Even though fingerprints are commonly used as tools in the investigation of crimes by law enforcement, the identification of a person through fingerprint analysis is not completely reliable, and the use of fingerprints without any other forms of corroborating evidence may result in wrongful convictions.
Most people are aware that they may face consequences if they are convicted of a crime. However, they may not realize that there are a number of situations in which police officers or other law enforcement officials may take money or property that they own. These forfeitures may be ordered as a sentence following a conviction, but many people are also subject to civil asset forfeitures in which money or property is taken because officers believe that it was related to criminal activity. Some recent court decisions involving federal crimes may play a role in cases where law enforcement attempts to seize people’s money.
In the case of United States v. Akhavan, which took place in a federal court in New York, a judge overturned a forfeiture order against a man who was convicted of bank fraud. The defendant had operated payment processors that tricked banks and credit card companies into accepting payments related to marijuana, even though their policies prohibited these types of transactions. More than $156 million in payments were processed, and the man accepted over $17 million in commissions. The government attempted to seize the entire $17 million, since it had been obtained through fraud.
For nearly two years, people throughout the United States have been taking precautions to limit the spread of COVID-19, protect against infections, and stay as safe as possible. During the pandemic, people have become used to certain protective measures, such as wearing face masks when indoors and maintaining social distancing. However, these precautions have had some unexpected effects, including in courts that have resumed in-person trials while taking steps to protect the safety of everyone in the courtroom. Some legal analysts have raised concerns about how face masks worn by people involved in trials will affect the rights of criminal defendants.
During a criminal trial, the ability to see and read people’s facial expressions can be crucial. However, this has become more difficult due to the requirements that people involved in trials wear masks. In Connecticut, an executive order issued by Governor Ned Lamont requires everyone entering state Judicial Branch facilities to wear facial coverings over their mouth and nose. Depending on the procedures followed in different courts, witnesses may provide testimony without wearing masks, and attorneys may be able to go unmasked when questioning witnesses or making arguments before a jury. However, other people in the courtroom will usually wear masks during a trial.
Rideshare apps such as Uber and Lyft are used regularly by people throughout the United States. These services can make transportation easy and convenient. However, people may not be aware of the risks that they may face when using rideshare apps. In a troubling trend, thousands of people have reported sexual assaults by rideshare drivers. Those who have been assaulted or otherwise harmed by drivers for Uber or Lyft will want to understand their options for pursuing a personal injury lawsuit against these companies.
Due to ongoing concern about the safety of rideshare passengers, Uber and Lyft have released reports detailing the number of incidents that occurred in recent years. Lyft’s most recent report showed that there were 4,158 reports of sexual assault from its customers between 2017 and 2019. These incidents included 360 reports of rape, with other cases involving nonconsensual touching of body parts or attempted sexual penetration. Reports involving Uber drivers have been even more troubling. Between 2017 and 2018, the company logged around 6,000 reports of sexual assault, including 235 rapes.
For nearly two years, people throughout the United States have been forced to deal with drastic changes to their lives due to the threat of COVID-19. People in prison are among the most seriously affected, and many have struggled to maintain their safety when being confined in close quarters alongside others and with limited access to medical care. While some recent changes to laws and policies have provided prisoners with benefits that have helped them remain safe, many prisoners who have been convicted of federal crimes are in a state of legal limbo due to ineffective implementation of policies and potential changes once the pandemic ends.
The FIRST STEP Act, which was passed by Congress in 2018, provided many benefits for federal prisoners, and one key policy change involved the ability for prisoners to earn time credits and reduce their sentences by participating in rehabilitation programs. The law also included provisions encouraging prisoners to participate in these programs by offering incentives such as increased phone privileges, more visitation time with family members, and transfers to prisons that are closer to their homes and families.
Encounters with police officers can be stressful. Whether a person is pulled over in a traffic stop, has an officer knock on the door of their home, or is approached by police in other situations, they may worry that if they say or do the wrong thing, they could be arrested or face criminal charges. If police officers perform a search of a person’s vehicle or other property, they may uncover evidence that may be used to pursue drug charges or other types of criminal charges. Due to concerns about police misconduct, a person may worry that these types of searches will provide officers with the opportunity to plant evidence that may be used against them in a criminal case. Fortunately, recent changes to the law and rulings by courts have limited police officers’ ability to perform searches based on claims that they smell marijuana.
For many years, claims that an officer has noticed the odor of marijuana have provided a pretext for performing a search of a person, vehicle, home, or other property without receiving consent from the person or obtaining a search warrant. Officers are generally allowed to perform warrantless searches if they have probable cause to believe that a person has violated the law. Since marijuana was treated as an illegal controlled substance in the past, the alleged smell of this drug was often seen as a strong sign that a person had illegally possessed or used the substance. When performing searches based on the smell of marijuana, officers may have been able to find drugs or other contraband, and this would often lead to arrests and criminal charges.
50 Founders Plaza
