The case of Michael Morton brings to mind something which no criminal defendant wants to think of – the fact that innocent people are sometimes put behind bars for years, crimes that they did not commit. In Morton’s case, when the prosecutor failed to present all potentially exculpatory evidence at Michael’s trial for the brutal murder of his wife, the jury concluded that he, the lone suspect, was the person who had killed her.

In 2011, a group of attorneys who were reviewing Morton’s case on a pro-bono basis discovered that not all of the available evidence had been presented at his trial. Eyewitness descriptions of the killer, the killer’s vehicle, and the attack, as well as a blood-stained bandanna found near the murder scene had somehow failed to make it into the courtroom. The bandanna was submitted for DNA testing, and it was found to contain the blood of the victim, as well as the blood of the person who killed her. Mark Norwood, a convicted felon, was identified as the murderer based upon DNA evidence, and Michael Morton was released from prison after having served twenty five years.

Earlier this year, the Michael Morton Act was signed into law in Texas. The Act requires prosecutors to turn over evidence to defense attorneys in criminal cases upon the attorneys’ requests, without requiring the defense attorneys to first obtain a court order. Both prosecutors and defense attorneys have stated that the passage of the Act has raised awareness of the importance of having access to evidence. Prosecutors have expressed concerns that the Michael Morton Act is increasing the cost of prosecuting criminal cases. It costs money to prepare evidence, and the more evidence there is which must be provided to other parties, the more money the state will need to spend in order to meet its obligation to do so. The increased cost of preparing and exchanging evidence is real, but it does not overcome the interest of the criminally accused in having access to all evidence which could support their defense.

Access to exculpatory evidence is something which has been the rule in courts across America for a long time. Brady v. Maryland, a 1963 case decided by the United States Supreme Court, set the precedent that prosecutors must produce information that is exculpatory in nature. Exculpatory evidence is evidence which points to the innocence of a defendant. States have varied in how they interpreted Brady, and that is why the Michael Morton Act is so important. Prior to the passage of the Act, prosecutors were in charge of deciding which evidence was exculpatory and which was not. The result is that prosecutors in at least seventeen cases in which convictions have been overturned, prosecutors failed to turn exculpatory evidence over to defense attorneys.

If you have been accused of a crime, an East Texas Criminal Defense Attorney can help you to present your very best defense against the crime or crimes which you have been accused of committing. The consequences of a conviction could be far-reaching, and could affect many areas of your life for years to come, so it is important to have a strong advocate in your corner of the courtroom.  To learn more, call attorney Alex Tyra today, to schedule a free consultation. We can be reached at (903) 753-7499, or submit a convenient online contact form.

One topic upon which many criminal drug cases are successfully defended is the area of searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects all Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures. Despite our right to be free from searches and seizures which are not conducted for valid reasons, they happen every day across the U.S.  With this in mind, if you have been charged with a drug crime, whether at a misdemeanor or a felony level, it is possible that a Fourth Amendment Defense could be helpful to your case.

Fortunately, criminal charges can be contested, and skilled Texas Criminal Defense Attorneys know how to spot invalid searches and seizures. In cases where criminal charges are based upon evidence which was obtained during an illegal search and seizure, an attorney can use the Fourth Amendment to keep that evidence out of the prosecution’s case. Sometimes, the evidence which is able to be excluded is so central to the prosecution’s case that charges against a defendant may be dropped.

If a search warrant was issued prior to the search and seizure, the warrant may be defective if it is not based on probable cause, or if it does not describe the place to be searched and the person or items to be seized. Probable cause is only present if the officer presents facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed, or that a crime is in progress. If a search is conducted pursuant to a warrant which is valid, the search itself may be defective. One situation in which a search based on a warrant can be improper is when the officers go beyond the scope of the warrant, that is, they search in places that are not described in the warrant.

In some cases, searches may be made without a warrant when there are circumstances which would make getting a warrant difficult or even impossible. There are a few different circumstances under which warrantless searches are performed, including the search incident to arrest, consensual searches, searches made in an emergency situation where life is at risk (exigent circumstances), searches of items that are in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the location from which they are viewing them, and automobiles because contraband that is stashed inside could be removed before a warrant could be obtained. As with searches that are conducted after a warrant has been issued, some warrantless searches are valid and some are not. Warrantless searches must be based on probable cause in order to be valid, so if the officer is not able to demonstrate that probable cause existed at the time that the search was performed, the search and any subsequent seizure may be deemed invalid.

Law enforcement officers must respect the constitutional rights of individuals, including the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Many criminal drug cases can benefit from a careful analysis of the searches and seizures which led to the charges against the defendant. An East Texas Criminal Defense Attorney can help you to determine whether a Fourth Amendment Defense could be pursued in your case. The consequences of a conviction could be far-reaching, and could affect many areas of your life for years to come. With so much at stake, it is important that you seek the aid of an experienced Criminal Defense Attorney who can help you to pursue the best possible outcome in your case. To learn more, call East Texas Criminal Defense Attorney Alex Tyra today, to schedule a free consultation. We can be reached at (903) 753-7499, or submit a convenient online contact form.