Recent blog posts

Hartford Criminal LawyerCriminal justice reform has become a focal point in contemporary American society, with a growing consensus that the system is in dire need of an overhaul. At the heart of this conversation lies a pressing issue impacting the lives of thousands of individuals who were convicted of crimes at a young age and subsequently saddled with lengthy prison sentences. With advancements in neuroscience research shedding light on the cognitive development of adolescents and the role this can play in criminal behavior, there is a mounting call to re-examine sentences for youthful offenders and explore alternative paths toward rehabilitation.

Advocates Call for Limits on Sentences and Second Looks for Youthful Offenders

In many cases, young people who are convicted of crimes face harsh sentences that limit the possibility of rehabilitation and prevent them from being able to be released and re-integrate into society. In recognition of the fact that young people's brains are still developing, which can limit their ability to understand the consequences of their actions, advocates are seeking to place limits on sentences for youthful offenders, such as by prohibiting life sentences without the possibility of parole for people under a certain age. They are also advocating for laws that allow sentences to be reviewed after a certain period of time to determine whether parole or other options may be available.

A recent case in Rhode Island illustrates the issues that youthful offenders often face in these situations. Gahlil Olivera, who was charged with offenses related to the murder of a state lawmaker's son, was convicted in 1995 and sentenced to life in prison, as well as a consecutive 40-year sentence. After serving more than 25 years, Mr. Olivera has sought relief and claimed that the original sentence was excessive.


"ConnecticutMass incarceration is a major concern that has affected our criminal justice system. The United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the world, and over two million people are currently serving prison sentences. More than 50 percent of the people in American prisons are serving sentences of 10 years or more, and one out of every seven people who are incarcerated have been sentenced to life in prison. As part of their ongoing calls for criminal justice reform, advocates have stated that prison reform measures should be put in place, including a 20-year cap on sentences, reduced sentences for all criminal offenses, and other reforms that would reduce the prison population and improve rehabilitation rates.

Reports Show the Benefits of Limiting Prison Sentences

Recently, multiple organizations that advocate for criminal justice reform have released reports detailing the benefits of reducing prison sentences and outlining changes that would benefit communities in the United States. A report by the Sentencing Project noted that mass incarceration has not improved safety or living conditions for people in the U.S., but has instead increased inequality and caused significant problems for many families. One out of every 14 children under the age of 14 have a parent who has been incarcerated, and this can affect parents' ability to provide for their children and ensure that they are raised in a safe and healthy environment. People with lower incomes and minorities are disproportionately affected by these issues, with Black children being twice as likely as white children to have a parent who is in prison.

Long prison sentences reduce the likelihood of rehabilitation, since those who have been incarcerated for multiple years or decades will often struggle to successfully re-enter the community. They can have difficulty finding employment and housing, and without the ability to support themselves and their families, they may feel that they have no other choice but to engage in criminal activity.


East Hartford Harassment Defense LawyerThere are numerous situations where people may face criminal charges due to stalking or harassment. Due to the ever-increasing use of digital technology and social media, many of these cases involve claims that a person posted messages online that caused others to fear for their safety. These cases sometimes involve issues that are difficult to resolve, since people may claim that they are exercising their right to free speech. The ways these matters are addressed can differ depending on state laws, and whether messages may be considered harassment is not always clear. However, the Supreme Court may soon offer some clarity on this issue, as it is scheduled to hear a case involving online harassment.

When Are Threatening Messages Considered to Be Harassment?

The case in question, Counterman v. Colorado, involved a man who was convicted under a Colorado law that prohibits sending repeated communication to a person in a manner that would cause them to experience emotional distress. The defendant in this case was accused of stalking a singer-songwriter over a period of several years. Even after being blocked repeatedly, he created new social media accounts and continued to communicate with the alleged victim, with many messages seeming to convey threats. The defendant was convicted of stalking and sentenced to 4.5 years in prison.

Notably, the applicable law in Colorado does not require proof that a person intended to cause distress or harm. If a person's actions or the messages they sent would cause someone to reasonably fear for their safety, the person may be convicted of stalking. Even if no direct threats were expressed, the totality of the person's conduct, such as multiple messages sent over a long period of time, may be considered to determine whether this conduct would reasonably cause an alleged victim to fear that they could suffer harm.


Hartford Drug Crime LawyerOver the past decade, the use of marijuana has become more and more accepted throughout the United States. Several states, including Connecticut, have made marijuana legal for both recreational use and medical purposes. However, marijuana is still considered to be an illegal controlled substance at the federal level. Because of this, the possession or use of marijuana can affect certain types of criminal cases. For example, federal law states that it is illegal for a person to possess a firearm if they are addicted to drugs or if they are an "unlawful user" of controlled substances. While this has led some marijuana users to face weapons charges, a federal judge recently ruled that this law is unconstitutional.

Law Prohibiting Gun Possession by Marijuana Users Violates Second Amendment

In the case of United States of America v. Jared Michael Harrison, an Oklahoma man was pulled over by a police officer, and during the traffic stop, the officer noticed the smell of marijuana in the vehicle. When the man's vehicle was searched, officers found a loaded handgun and several marijuana products, including joints, THC gummies, and vape cartridges. The man was charged with possession of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia, and he also was indicted on federal charges for possessing a firearm as an unlawful user of marijuana.

While marijuana has been approved for medical use in Oklahoma, the defendant in this case did not have a medical marijuana card. Because he was in violation of the state's marijuana laws, he was eligible for prosecution under the federal law prohibiting weapon possession by people who have violated drug laws. However, a federal judge dismissed the indictment, and in his ruling, he stated that the law in question is unconstitutional. Specifically, he ruled that the law violated the right to bear arms as defined in the Second Amendment.


East Hartford Criminal Defense LawyerData privacy is an issue that has become increasingly important in recent years. As people have become more aware of the types of information collected by companies such as cell phone providers, social media platforms, and government organizations, laws are beginning to be put in place to ensure that sensitive information can be protected. As more attention is being paid to how technology firms and other companies use people's data, the ways this type of information is accessed and used by law enforcement have also received greater scrutiny. However, many people are unaware of what types of data police officers or other law enforcement officials can access and how this information may be used in criminal cases.

Questions About the Use of Personal Data in Police Investigations

There are numerous ways that police officers may use data collected from multiple sources to investigate crimes. In some cases, searches involving data may be performed as police investigate a particular suspect or review information related to a specific event. However, they may often conduct much broader and more sweeping investigations, collecting and storing personal information and other data that could potentially be used to prosecute future crimes.

One area of concern involves "predictive policing," in which data collected from a variety of sources is used by algorithms and artificial intelligence programs to supposedly predict when and where crimes are more likely to occur or to identify people who may engage in criminal activity. Because these programs use existing data related to police records and offenses that have been prosecuted in the past, they are likely to increase inequities in the justice system. For example, one key source of data for these programs is previous arrest records. Because Black people and other minorities are more likely to be stopped and questioned by police, arrested, and prosecuted for criminal offenses, systems that use data about these arrests are more likely to identify Black suspects as potential criminals instead of white people.

Logo Image 50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
Phone: 860-290-8690
Fax: 860-290-8697
We are available by appointment during evening and weekend hours, if necessary.

Facebook   Twitter   Our Blog