But there are some things that have always been viewed as important.  The necessities, you know, like making sure you have food to eat, a place to sleep, or clothes to wear.  Oh, and not getting arrested.

Getting popped by the police and hauled down to the pokey can be a traumatic event.  The only thing worst is actually being convicted and sentenced by a judge afterward.  This is usually true.  I say usually because even in this seemingly clear-cut territory, another one of life’s oddities can sometimes rear its head (I know, I know, I really need to cut back on the clichés).  Because for some people (probably the cool kids) as long as the conviction isn’t a felony than there’s nothing to worry about, right?  Umm… no, not right.  Oh, misguided cool kids, and to think I once wanted to be like you.

A misdemeanor is no laughing matter (there I go again).  Misdemeanor offenses range from vandalism to petty theft to narcotic possession and more.  Penalties vary from state to state, but in general a misdemeanor conviction can result in fines up to $1000, a year in jail, and/or community service.  And depending on the type of offense, you can also be ordered to complete a rehabilitation program or have your driver’s license suspended or even revoked.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg (ugh, another one).  The negative byproduct effects of a misdemeanor can cause chaos in the rest of your life, as well.  Depending on the severity of the offense, a misdemeanor conviction can limit what jobs are available to you or even get you expelled from college depending on your school’s student conduct policy, not to mention the embarrassment of having a blotch on your otherwise clean record (last one, I swear).  The cost of contracting an attorney, though helpful in resolving a misdemeanor criminal case, can be high, too.

The sheer amount of conduct that can be categorized as a criminal misdemeanor is often confusing, as well.  Once again, laws and what is considered illegal vary from state to state.  LegalMatch has received misdemeanor cases for everything from skate boarding on school grounds to noise violations.  Though the vast majority of LegalMatch’s misdemeanor cases still involve drug and theft offenses, it’s important to note the caveat of obscure laws.

So what can be done?  A good way to keep yourself out of the big house is to stay knowledgeable about changes in your local laws, especially those that concern you or your particular industry.  You can do this by contacting your local city hall, law library, or do the modern thing and research on the internet.

What else can you do, you ask?  Well, you can also stay out of trouble by doing the most obvious thing and not commit well-established crimes, such as robbery.  Duh.  That’s you’re best bet (dammit…).

Demystifying the Misdemeanor is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

Simpson claimed that he was merely taking back his belongings that had been stolen, and his lawyer urged the court to consider the minimum sentence of six years because Simpson does not have a criminal record. 

Clark County District Judge Jackie Glass, however, focused on the violent and premeditated nature of the crimes, along with the overwhelming evidence against Simpson.  Glass expressed dismay with Simpson during the trial, accusing him of “arrogance or ignorance or both,” and doubling his bail after he violated his release terms.   

Glass has been both heralded for her “tough on crime” approach, as well as criticized for sacrificing defendants’ constitutional rights in the name of courtroom efficiency.  Specifically, critics allege that Glass has dismissed challenges to her rulings and has failed to furnish defense attorneys with complete reports of defendants with mental troubles.  The judge is currently under review by the Nevada Supreme Court for preventing defense attorneys from entering their clients’ psychological evaluations.

Although there has been some speculation that the harsh sentence was in part motivated by a desire to punish Simpson for infamously beating murder charges 13 years ago, so far, few (besides Simpson’s lawyer) have objected to the sentence.  Also, there have not been widespread accusations that his conviction was racially tainted.  Under law, Simpson’s acquittals for the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman, should not be used against him in subsequent trials. 

Judges can, however, impose harsher sentences based on a felon’s prior record or for bad behavior.  Here, Simpson’s courtroom behavior did not constitute legal grounds for imposing a harsher sentence.  Yet, unless it is proven that Glass’ sentence was driven by improper motive, or that she violated another guideline, Simpson’s sentence will stand.  Is this justice?  I suppose the appeals court will have the chance to determine that. . . .  Recent reports indicate that nearly half of the jury thought Simpson should have been convicted for the murders of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, and Simpson’s lawyer has stated that jury bias will form the basis of their appeal.

Through The Looking Glass: OJ Faces Up To 33 Years In Prison is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

After years of openly lobbying for her sons acquittal from a murder conviction, Doreen Giuliano decided to go undercover. She hatched a plan to befriend a juror from her son’s trial and dig up incriminating evidence of juror misconduct in order to overturn the conviction. Mrs. Giuliano became Dee Quinn, a 30 year old professional from California who wore high heels, tight clothes and push up bras. She rented a new apartment, got a tan, lost weight, and dyed her hair blond in an effort to reinvent herself for her daring scheme.

After following two other jurors from the trial to no avail, she became acquainted with Jason Allo. She and Mr. Allo developed a 3 month relationship, which eventually culminated in Mrs. Giuliano hitting the jackpot: a recorded conversation where Mr. Allo admitted to knowing people on the witness list and having a grudge against the gang that Mrs. Giuliano’s son was allegedly involved with. All of these things would have made Mr. Allo unqualified to be a juror, which Mrs. Giuliano claims he even admits on tape. She further claims that Mr. Allo convinced the originally hesitant and skeptical jurors to find her son guilty, a charge Mr. Allo denies.

Will this work? Mrs. Giuliano claims she is looking for a fair trial, not to set her son free at any cost. Certainly, guilt and fairness in criminal justice are separate concerns. Legally a court can overturn a conviction for juror misconduct, but it does not have to. In fact, the convicted carries the heavy burden of proving that juror misconduct was bad enough to warrant overturning the conviction, something courts are loathe to do.

If the court does overturn the conviction, what kind of standard will this set for the future? Will jurors be a little more worried about finding someone guilty? Courts want jurors concentrating on the evidence, not on whether they will be stalked or harmed by those invested in the trial’s outcome. And how did Mrs. Giuliano obtain the private numbers and addresses and names of all the jurors sitting in her son’s trial? The privacy of jurors should be of utmost importance to the courts and to criminal justice in general. Although trials are public hearings, jurors are already scarce enough. Let’s not scare away more jurors from doing their civic duty.

If true, Mr. Allo’s deceit was wrong and unjust. In the end it is doubtful that Mrs. Giuliano’s sting operation will overturn the conviction, however. There were 11 other jurors who thought the defendant committed the crime.

Undercover Mother is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

Although four senators before Stevens have been convicted of crimes, two resigned, one died, and one’s term expired before the Senate had a chance to vote on his expulsion.  According to Senate historian, Don Ritchie:  “The Senate is a very collegial body and really doesn’t like to act in that sense.”  As such, they would probably wait for any appeals to be decided before taking action.  So, when will Stevens be considered “convicted”?  A majority of scholars believe a jury’s verdict seals the deal; however, most precedent says a judge’s formal entry of judgment and sentence is definitive. 

At least Stevens couldn’t cast a vote for himself – or anyone – for now since Alaska law denies felons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude the right to vote until they’re “released from all disability arising under a conviction and sentence, including probation and parole.” 

It baffles me that questions have been raised as to whether Stevens’ crimes involve moral turpitude.  According to the Alaska statute, felonies involving moral turpitude include crimes that are “immoral or wrong in themselves such as murder  . . . extortion, coercion . . . theft, forgery . . . scheme to defraud, falsifying business records . . . bribery, receiving a bribe, perjury, perjury by inconsistent statements . . . and criminal mischief.”  Given that bribery is listed as a crime qualifying under the statute, it seems clear to me that Stevens was engaging in more than enough “moral turpitude” to be covered by the law.

Crooks in Congress: What’s New? is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog